BOARD OF PENSIONS BILL. (Hansard, 14 November 1916)

HC Deb 14 November 1916 vol 87 cc641-710 641

§ The PAYMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. A. Henderson)
I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill for establishing a Board of Pensions, and for purposes connected therewith."
The Bill which I ask leave to introduce aims at the consolidation of pensions administration and the simplification of procedure under a new Government Department, namely, the Board of Pensions. This Bill transfers the work of four Departments in so far as it relates to disability pensions paid from public funds. These Departments are: War Office, so far as officers' disability pensions are concerned, the work which goes on at the Tate Gallery; the work done in connection with the Chelsea Commissioners; the work of the Army Pay Issue Department at Baker Street; and the supplementation work of the Statutory Committee.

An HON. MEMBER
Does it include the Navy?

642

Mr. HENDERSON
The Navy is not included, except so far as supplementation is concerned. I ought to make clear that at this stage it is not proposed to take over the Army service and campaign pensions, nor is it proposed to take separation allowances. These are now administered by the War Office. They number something like 2,250,000. They will expire on the termination of the War, or immediately on demobilisation, and it is thought that to upset the existing arrangements for a temporary period would be a mistake. It is not suggested either that it need take over the first payment of Admiralty pensions and allowances. Before I explain the constitution, duties, and powers of the new Board, I want to give the House the reason why the Government consider that such a measure as they ask leave to introduce is necessary. To put the position in a sentence, they have come to the conclusion that to continue several Departments, dealing with different branches of what is essentially an indivisible piece of administration, with consequent overlapping and lack of uniformity and delays in payments, was most difficult to defend. Such a system, or may I say want of system, meant that no one was responsible. There was no directing or coordinating control, and no authoritative representative answerable to Parliament. Just as the time when help was most needed for the soldiers, just at the time when the beneficent public was most anxious to assist the soldiers, they were left in ignorance as to the proper authority to whom they had to apply for a pension, and they were disappointed and perplexed in not being able to locate blame for the delay that so frequently happened, and when their cases were not fairly and promptly dealt with. It is no exaggeration to say, as I had reason to find out during the period I have been chairman of the Chelsea Commissioners, that there is a growing want of confidence in our present methods of dealing with the pension question. The Government, therefore, are of opinion that an improvement can be effected, and that this can be done best by exchanging the disadvantages of separation for the advantages of co-ordination.
Apart from the facts which I have mentioned, some improvement in pensions administration is essential, if only to enable us to deal more effectively with the progressive increase in the number of 643 cases, and the work which those cases involve. I may give a few figures which I think represent the position. Take, first of all, the number of cases, and the work which those cases involve. In January, 1916, in connection with the War Office Disability Section, there were 644 cases, involving 3,000 letters. In October, 1916, there were 1,145 cases, involving 4,943 letters. It is estimated that in March, 1917, there will be 1,242 cases, involving 6,000 letters. Take the Tate Gallery, which deals with widows and dependants' pensions and gratuities. In January, 1916, there were 9,700 cases, involving 16,500 letters. In October there were 17,000 cases, involving 46,000 letters; and it is estimated that in March next there will be 35,500 cases, involving 120,000 letters. In the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, there were in January, 1916, 4,507 cases, involving 25,000 letters. In October, 1916, there were 25,335 cases, involving 122,182 letters; and it is estimated that in March, 1917, there will be 60,000 cases, involving 190,000 letters. In the Central Army Pay Issue Department, Baker Street, in January, 1916, there were 13,000 cases, involving 34,324 letters. In October, 1916, there were 29,458 cases, involving 531,350 letters. In March, 1917, we estimate that there will be 50,000 cases, involving 1,062,000 letters. These give a total of cases which will have to come under this new Department, as 27,551 in January, involving 77,824 letters; 73,538 cases in October, involving 705,277 letters; and it is estimated that next March there will be 146,244 cases, involving 1,378,500 letters.

§ Mr. HOGGE
That does not include letters of complaint.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
It includes letters of complaint, and a very large number of letters which were absolutely necessitated by the correspondence that must go on at present between all the sections before they are co-ordinated. I may give some further figures. The staff which has been doing the work in the War Office, officers' disability section, amounts to thirty. In the War Office, Tate Gallery section, it amounts to 309, in the Chelsea Hospital to 595, in the Central Army Pay Issue Office to 960, and in the War Office Statutory Committee Disability Section to 58, making a total staff which is to be taken over immediately the Bill 644 becomes law of 1,952. I may make a further observation in regard to staff. I find, from numerous letters which I have-already received from Members of Parliament, that there are many candidates for posts. There is an impression outside that when this Bill becomes law we begin, de novo with a clear field and that we shall have to make provision for the entire staff that will be required. I desire to emphasise the point that we have now almost 2,000 of a staff, and I should be very much mistaken indeed if the new conditions of work do not enable us to reduce the staff, or, at any rate, to do a much larger amount of work with the staff which we have at present. Therefore, I want Members and the general public to realise that there is very little use sending letters in regard to candidates who want posts, because we hope that we have sufficient for some time to come.
The figures which I have given not only show where we stand, but, I think, entitle me to say that it will be some years before any substantial and permanent reduction in the amount of work may be expected. Surely then, if that is so, it is of the greatest importance that our pensions system should work smoothly, speedily, and effectively, so that the public may feel satisfied that the money which they provide for their officer and soldier heroes is being properly administered. I will now say a word or two with regard to the constitution, duties, and powers of the new Ministry. The Board is to consist of a president, and three members named in the Bill. I am aware that this proposal to have a Board may be the subject of criticism. I think that I have already seen that Members of this House have indulged in criticism of this method of procedure. There is a feeling that if we have a Board it will mean divided responsibility. There is also a feeling that a Board may retard rather than assist the progress of this work. I do not share that view. On the contrary, I am convinced that by advice on questions of policy, and in maintaining proper relationships between the new Board of Pensions and the several Departments represented by the other members of the Board, such a Board can serve a very useful purpose. Perhaps I ought to make clear that it is the intention of the Government that the President of the Board must be held responsible to the 645 House for the administration of the new Department. I also want to make clear that the Board of Pensions has to concern itself exclusively with, and be responsible for, all military pensions except Service pensions?
To enable the Board to discharge its functions the Bill transfers certain powers, which I should like to give to the House. These are the powers and duties of the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital for Soldiers at Chelsea with respect to the grant and administration of disability pensions other than "in" pensions. The "in" pensioner is the old pensioner who comes into the hospital and resides there, and that work is going to be done, as for a very long time, under the responsibility of the Commissioners. It is entirely different work, the duty being really to provide the man with a home. The Bill transfers all powers, except those connected with the "in" pensioner, the powers and duties of the Army Council and of the Secretary of State for War's Department with respect to pensions, grants to officers who have been wounded, or soldiers, to their widows, children, and other dependants other than Service pensions. Further the powers and duties of the Statutory Committee under the Naval and Military Pensions Act, 1915, so far as they relate to the supplementation of pensions and grants administered by the Board of Pensions, except the power to supplement such pensions out of funds not received from moneys provided by Parliament. In other words, the Statutory Committee retains its powers practically untouched except so far as what they have done in supplementation, and I will deal with that a little later on. [An HON. MEMBER: "All their powers really!"] I hope hon. Members will not prematurely come to a conclusion with regard to the powers of the Statutory Committee. If they refer to Clause 3 of the Naval and Military Pensions Act, I think they will find the Committee have a great amount of further work to deal with.

§ Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL
There is a very important point which I think should be cleared up. Is it proposed by the Government to withdraw the grant of public money to the Statutory Committee, and is it expected that that Committee will depend on voluntary subscriptions?

646

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I think it better for hon. Members to allow the Minister to give his explanation.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I thank you, Sir. I think it would be better if hon. Members will allow me to do that. I shall have abundant opportunities before the Bill passes through all its stages to satisfy my hon. Friends who are interested in special phases of the work. Some exception may be taken to the limit and nature of the work which the Board of Pensions is to undertake. It may be urged that the problem of the disabled soldier goes much deeper, for instance, than pensions, and that a satisfactory permanent solution can only be found by a comprehensive handling of the whole question of which the pension forms but a part, and, in the judgment of many, not the most important part. I frankly admit the force of that argument. I am fully convinced of the importance of co-ordinating, as far as it is possible, cure after care, training, employment, and pensions; and if all these could have been brought together and administered under one roof, with one controlling head, the different sections of the work could have been fostered and developed on lines most conducive to the efficient solution of the entire problem. But, however desirable this arrangement may be, the Government have reluctantly come to the conclusion that, having regard to our present circumstances, it would be most difficult to secure.
This must be obvious if we consider the magnitude of the problem at this stage,, the pre-occupation of the Government services on war work, and the almost insuperable difficulty of securing such a trained staff for the purposes of carrying on every phase of this work as would be required. Moreover, there is the difficulty of housing. I know something of this question, because, at Chelsea, our work is very much hindered at the moment by lack of proper accommodation. There would be great difficulty in securing a building wherein we could house, under one roof, the staff necessary to carry out all the phases of the work to which I have referred. I would ask the House to remember for a moment that we have now a staff of 2,000, and to realise what would be necessary if we are to add to that the staff required for the other phases—cure after care, training, and employment—and to bear in mind also the position as to pensions alone 647 before the end of the War, if the number of cases should increase in the same ratio as they have done during the past year. While, therefore, I have the strongest possible desire to see the whole thing properly handled under one Department, I feel that the Government have come to a right decision in seeking to perfect pension administration and leaving the other phases of the work where they stand at present.
Apart from those practical difficulties to which I have already referred there are other considerations which must not be overlooked. For instance, there is no small amount of expert opinion in this country in favour of cure after care and training taking place before the soldier is discharged and during the period of military discipline. If this policy were adopted, and in my opinion there is much to be said in favour of it in the interests of the men themselves, then a strong case can be made out for close co-ordination between pensions and employment. May I make a further observation as to the relation of cure after care and training to pensions. The experience I have goes to prove that only when the pension has been permanently fixed and guaranteed to the soldier is the soldier, speaking generally, prepared to take kindly to training. The men are not prepared to allow either the State or an employer to take any advantage of them if they feel so disposed. May I give a brief extract from a letter I received the other day from Professor Thomas Oliver, of New-castle-on-Tyne. Owing to the liberality, the very great liberality, of the daughter of a former much respected Member of this House—the late Mr. Joseph Cowen—owing to her great munificence they have been able to start a home or institution for training purposes in that city. They began with great expectations, but I find from Professor Oliver's letter that they feel themselves in the same difficulty as that to which I have just referred. He writes: The difficulty the trustees of the Home had to contend with and which has prevented the institution fulfilling the wishes of the trustees is the widespread feeling amongst discharged soldiers that if the men enter a home and receive a training and succeed in getting work the amount of their pensions will be reduced. It would be of the greatest assistance to the trustees if you could give them an authoritative statement that in no case shall the pension of a soldier disabled through wounds received in the service of his country be reduced in consequence of his ability to add to his income. 648 The French experience was exactly the same as that described in the extract I have just read. I would like to put the House in possession of what I consider to be a very important statement contained in a report I received a little time ago from Lord Esher. The report said that at first about 80 per cent. of the men refused re-education for fear of losing their pension. The Government has removed that fear by the definite assertion that the amount of a man's pension depends not upon his earning power, but upon the extent. of his incapacity resulting from his disability.

§ Mr. HOGGE
This Government has not said that.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I am speaking of the French Government. As to what our own Government is going to say, that will be the subject of our attention later on. It seems to me the extracts I have just read do show that it would be most difficult for us to enter upon a great scheme of after care and training until we first settle the very important principle of how education and re-education is going to affect the pension of the recipient. In connection with this question of after care and training, I think the House would like to know something as to the future relations between the Statutory Committee and the Board of Pensions. I was interrupted a moment ago by the suggestion that when we took away supplementation the work of the Statutory Committee would be at an end. That is a mistake, as I think I can show. I have quoted the powers we are going to transfer from the Statutory Committee. I should like now to point out that the Statutory Committee retain the power to supplement separation allowances, service pensions, and pensions to officers' widows so far as those pensions are determined by service. This form of supplementation to which I have just referred can be done either from private or from public funds. I want to make that perfectly clear, and I may say in passing that the public funds here referred to are the public funds about which the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) seems a little concerned, the public funds that have been promised by the Treasury, and an arrangement is to be made whereby either the whole or part of that money is going to be continued at the disposal of the Statutory Committee.
649 Further, with regard to their powers, they will deal with disability pensions to officers and men, grants to widows and children and other dependants of men, pensions to officers' widows, so far as they are determined otherwise than by the service of the officer—these the Statutory Committee will only have power to supplement out of private funds. There are a lot of things they have been able to do and will be able to continue doing out of private funds, but I hope that a good deal of the supplementation which my hon. Friend has in his mind will be made unnecessary by the scheme I trust to be able to introduce to the House at a later stage. The powers resting with the Statutory Committee when this Bill becomes law will comprise the power to make advances on account of pensions, grants, or allowances, the power to administer voluntary funds, and the power to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health and training, and securing them in employment. Unless a change of policy is meant and the War Office take this work entirely into their own hands it seems to me that the only authority, except the War Office, which will be able to continue this highly beneficent work must be the Statutory Committee. That work may be continued either out of funds that will be left to them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or from any funds that they care to collect from other sources. Arising out of this question of the relationship between the Statutory Committee and the new Board there comes the question of local committees. This is a very important question. I do not mind confessing to the House that the more I have gone into this question during the past few months the more fully I am convinced that, after you have proper coordination for questions of principle and questions of policy, the more you can decentralise, the more you can work through properly constituted and thoroughly representative committees, the more efficient will the work be done. Therefore, as there are some 300 of these local committees already in being, created by the Statutory Committee since it was set up nine months ago, I hope to look very carefully into the position; in fact, I may say I have already discussed this question with representatives of the Statutory Committee, and I think we will 650 be able to come to some satisfactory arrangement whereby the position of local committees may be further improved.

§ Sir NORVAL HELME
And extended?

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I was going to say there is a feeling that in the setting up of local committees the urban element. as against the rural element, has not received that consideration to which those concerned considered they were entitled. They feel that they ought to have certain powers. There is a feeling that in relation to populations of 30,000 and 35,000, where the urban district is so vastly different from the element in the surrounding county, that the urban element, as I said a moment ago, has not been properly considered. I am going to take that up with the Statutory Committee. I am confident that I will experience from them the same reasonableness that I have experienced during the negotiations that have gone on during the past few days, and that I shall be able to make arrangements satisfactory to the local authorities who have, up to the present moment, felt dissatisfied. Before concluding, I think I ought to say that I have purposely avoided dealing with the questions of scales and payments. These, as the House is fully aware, have to be made under Royal Warrant. I have had every reason to examine over and over again the powers and conditions established by these Royal Warrants, and I confess to the House that there is much in them that provided me with anything but satisfaction.

An HON. MEMBER
Burn them.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I am advised to burn them. I have many a time been advised to scrap them. I want to promise this: That they shall receive my earliest attention, once the Department. is set up. I can assure the House that the new Board will carefully review them in the light of the experience that we have obtained since I took over the chairmanship of the Chelsea Commissioners. It will give me the greatest possible pleasure, at a later stage, and with the assent of the Prime Minister, to put fully before the House all the improvements that I think ought to be made in our scheme. I have already discussed the matter with the representative of the 651 Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think he recognises, as I do, that there is room for improvement. It is our intention, immediately the ministry has been created, to go very fully into the matter with the intention of placing the pensions administration of this country, as promptly as ever we possibly can, in a position much more satisfactory than it can be claimed to be in at the present moment. I therefore beg leave to move to introduce the Board of Pensions Bill, and I can only say that I will be prepared at a later stage to place the fullest information at my disposal before the House.

§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH
I am sure we have listened with very great interest to the first speech of the right hon. Gentleman in his new office. We all congratulate him upon the appointment to that office. We wish him every success in the performance of the very arduous duties that lie before him. I am quite Sure of this, that he brings to bear upon the office, not only a strong hand, but also—which is of equal importance—a humane heart. If my information be correct, his advent to Chelsea has already resulted in reforms which are really very far-reaching in their importance to the country. He has said that some such Bill as this is necessary. No doubt that is so. But I venture to say to the House to-day that of all post-war problems that concern us, this is by far the most important. I am bound to say, speaking for myself, that I hear a great many discussions on post-war problems that seem to me to depend almost entirely upon the result of the War. The whole problem is different according to the peace that we get. Sometimes, I am afraid, so far as these questions are concerned, some of us are apt to jump before we come to the stile. This, however, is not one of those problems. Whatever be the result of the War, this problem will confront us. The right hon. Gentleman from his official position, quite rightly, has made no estimate. I am not bound by such reticence. When you take what I think is a moderate view of the results of this War, in killed and wounded, I myself much fear that this Bill will concern a figure somewhere between one-eighth and one-fourth of the population. When we look at it from that point of view it is a stupendous problem. When we remember that some of these pensioners will, we hope, live for 652 another half-century, it is quite obvious that the duties of the office will astonish even the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman has very rightly divided his speech into machinery and policy. Let me say a word or two about machinery. The right hon. Gentleman is now paymaster. As paymaster he found his way to Chelsea. Now he is going to be chairman of this new Board. He has got under him three vice-presidents whose names are not in the Bill.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
They are members of the Board.

Mr. GRIFFITH
Well, I understand that this Board of which the right hon. Gentleman is chairman, with three other members whose names are mentioned in the Bill, but which the right hon. Gentleman thinks it not necessary to divulge at the present moment—

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I will tell the House. The three members of the Board are the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board.

Mr. GRIFFITH
I think we might as well have them.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I thought everybody knew.

Mr. GRIFFITH
I am not in the political secrets of the House, and therefore I did not. I do not want to be unduly curious about these throe Gentlemen and their relationship to the right hon. Gentleman himself. We were not certain, from what the papers said, who was to be chairman, and who were to be members. But let that pass! What I want to know is why this is called a Board? There is the Board of Trade, the Board of Education, the Board of Agriculture, and many other Boards. So far as the Board of Education and the Board of Trade are concerned, although there are nominal members of these Boards, they are not merely members of the Boards. If my memory serves me rightly, the Archbishop of Canterbury is a member of the Board of Trade, but he does not find time to devote all his energies to that Department! As I understand it, this Board is in some way different to a Board of that kind. There are four members, and there is one chairman. I do not want to be unduly curious, but these questions will 653 have to be answered: Are the four of coequal authority on the Board? The right hon. Gentleman said he was responsible. I understand that. So long as he is chairman he has got to be responsible, but is he supreme on the Board? That is the real point. Or is it simply a question like this: Suppose there are three present, two on one side, and the chairman on the other, does he adopt the view of the two, and then in that way become responsible to the House?

§ Mr. HENDERSON
Subject to the Cabinet, the Minister is responsible.

Mr. GRIFFITH
I do not doubt that. You cannot help being responsible. Responsibility is a thing you cannot divest yourself of so long as you are chairman. The moment you cease to be responsible you cease to be chairman. But what I want to know, and what I think the House is entitled to know, is whether these four gentlemen are men of equal authority, the chairman to speak for them whether he agrees with them or not, so long as he retains office, or whether these three gentlemen are, in his own words, to give advice, which is so much pleasanter to accept than dictation, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I understand from his speech—I did not know how it may be—that he has got these three gentlemen to advise him. Does he follow their advice if he, thinks it right, and rejects it if he thinks it wrong? As I understand, the chairman must be the supreme and only authority for the Board. We ought to understand this point with perfect clearness. Judging by the right hon. Gentlemen surrounding the Paymaster-General, there is a meeting of the Board now.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
They are all here.

§ 5.0 P.M.

Mr. GRIFFITH
Yes; and if I may say so, they seem to be in perfect amity and concord, but the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) who flank the right hon. Gentleman on the right side, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher) who is on his left are evidently half-timers. [Laughter]. I do not mean that disrespectfully at all. They do a great deal of work. They have other work of an important character. I do not know whether I would not have been more pleased if the right hon. Gentleman himself had been a whole-timer. I am afraid he, too, is a half-timer. He is still, so far as I know, Labour Adviser to the Government. That 654 is a very important office, especially at this juncture. All I submit to the House is that these gentlemen really cannot do this great work unless one of them devotes at least the whole of his time to it. If it be found, upon reflection, that they cannot be relieved of their other functions, I think it is important for us to consider whether the Government might not see their way to, at any rate, appoint an Under-Secretary of State who would be able to devote his whole time to this matter. I was very glad, as I am sure we shall all be glad, to learn that the new Board with its nearly 2,000 servants is to be under one roof. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman said so in so many words, but I have no doubt that if it be found possible he will do his best to assimilate the Departments, and bring them as near together as possible in their practical working.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
May I say that matter has been very carefully considered. We are hoping to obtain a building which will take all the sections I have referred to The building will be complete, we hope, by about April or May next year.

Mr. GRIFFITH
I think that it is an assurance which the House, I am sure, will welcome, for it is one of the objects I am certain that we all had in view. The situation, then, as far as the constitution of the new Board is concerned, is this: The Admiralty stands out as far as the flat rate is concerned. I must say I think that is a pity. There may be reasons for it. The right hon. Gentleman very rightly, if I may say so, did not enter upon that, because I have no doubt his colleague on the right (Dr. Macnamara) will defend it. I do not doubt that there may be much to be said in its defence. There are considerations of sentiment, and tradition, and service to make the Admiralty stand aside, and there may be the fact that they are only about 300,000 as compared with 3,000,000 or more on the other side. It may be, too, that in the majority of cases they are long-service men. The Admiralty will put up the case that all the circumstances are different. At the same time, for the sake of uniformity, I do think it is a pity that the Admiralty did not see its way to come into this scheme, and I hope it is not yet too late for the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to reconsider the position. It does seem to me a pity that 655 we should in time of war speak of Departments. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board knows the dfficulties. I do not know them of my own knowledge, but I am quite sure from what I know of him that he has had great difficulty with the different Departments. He looks after the tribunals. The War Office says, "We want men." The Board of Agriculture says, "We want men." The Board of Trade says, "You must not take the men who are in certified occupations." Then my Friend the President of the Local Government Board has somehow or other, with ingenuity, to frame regulations for the tribunals, so that they may obey all the different Departments. It is the same here. The Admiralty talks about these pensions as if they were Admiralty pensions. It is not an Admiralty pension; it is a State pension. Why cannot they come into the State scheme? Why cannot the Admiralty sacrifice some sentiment and some service, and throw all its energies into this scheme, the purposes of which are national and Imperial, and do not concern any particular Department at all What I do not understand is this: If the Admiralty stands out as far as the flat rate is concerned, why does it not stand out so far as the supplementary rate is concerned too? How can it have its sanctity and traditions of service for the one and not for the other? Why does it not say, "We cannot trust these other people either as to the supplementary scale or the flat rate"? It is true there is money in it. That is another matter, and makes them conform to the very thing they dislike. I do hope the Admiralty will come into this scheme, and that if they do not I am bound to say I think it will be more satisfactory for the Admiralty to stand out of the scheme altogether. I think it should be either in for all purposes or out for all purposes. The House will have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon that matter, and if the Admiralty finds that the House expresses a strong opinion, I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will yield gracefully and come in.
Let us come now to the other Departments which it is proposed to amalgamate. I understand it is only the Admiralty that now stands outside as far as this branch of the subject is concerned. With regard to Chelsea, I understand that the duties of Chelsea are absorbed in the new Board. Somebody will be replying for the Gov- 656 ernment, and I would like to know whether the personnel of Chelsea remains. I have looked at the personnel of Chelsea, and I think it is rather ill-adapted for the present position. I think there are twenty-four members, and there are three paid officers. I have looked through the list, and I would like to know what the quorum at Chelsea is. The right hon. Gentleman has been there and no doubt he can tell me. I have a grave suspicion as to the number of the twenty-four people who are able to attend. That will be obvious if you will look at their names. They have much more important duties to perform. I should like to know how far the personnel of Chelsea is retained in this amalgamation scheme. I hope that the equivalent of the Chelsea Commissioners will consist, not of soldiers and sailors alone, but of business men, of employers, and members of the trade unions, and, indeed, men representative of all classes of the community. What we really want in these matters is that the business element should be much more prominently associated with the duties. At present the right hon. Gentleman has not said anything about the methods now pursued in respect of Chelsea. As he knows—he will correct me if I am wrong—at present the War Office deals with all officers' pensions. It also deals with the pensions to the dependants of all private soldiers actually killed in the War. It is only the disabled men who go to Chelsea. When a disabled man goes to Chelsea, what they determine there is his earning capacity. I think it would be very interesting to the House to know not merely the change of machinery, but.—and this is the real point—what is to be the driving force of the new machinery. If the new machine goes on the same lines as the old machine, we shall have the same grievances as before. I understand that the present procedure is this—

§ Mr. HENDERSON
May I correct the right hon. Gentleman? The question of the test of earning capacity was not settled by the Chelsea Commissioners. It was settled by the Select Committee set up by this House, whose Report was presented to the House and accepted by a majority of it.

§ Mr. HOGGE
No, no!

§ Mr. HENDERSON
By a majority.

Mr. GRIFFITH
I will not go into these matters now. If the House did say it 657 was in favour of that, all I can say is that if it was asked again to express its view, I think it would say it is not in favour of it. I read myself a letter which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henderson) printed in the newspapers, in which he cast some doubt on that matter. However, let that pass. This is the procedure now: the man goes to Chelsea, and the doctors examine him and judge of his earning capacity, and, as I understand it—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—if a man be totally disabled he gets 25s. per week; if he is only half disabled, then he will get 12s. 6d.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
It depends on the limb lost.

Mr. GRIFFITH
That is settled for a certain time. When he comes back to Chelsea a second time, they ask him not what his earning capacity is, but what does he actually earn. And I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be very anxious to scrap that question as far as Chelsea is concerned, because, as he said quite frankly, it does really interfere with the man's willingness and anxiety to earn money if it is to be taken into account. in revising his pension.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
Perhaps I may satisfy the hon. Member on that point, because, so far as the Chelsea Commissioners are concerned, I think they scrapped that question at my first meeting. It was only when it was found that we could not scrap the Warrant as a whole, and that we must be governed by the Warrant until we had had it replaced, that the Chelsea Commissioners felt they were bound to consider what they regarded as a very bad test until we got a new Warrant. I think I made it clear in my speech that I am contemplating a new Warrant at a very early date.

Mr. GRIFFITH
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That is as important a statement as we have heard during the course of the whole Debate. If we had only had that one statement, the Debate would have answered a very useful purpose. I hope I may remind him of another thing that will shortly be important. I do not know how many meetings he attended, but if he goes on at this rate, and we have such progress after every meeting he attends, I think we shall have a great number of reforms before long. I understand they are now issuing certificates as final. I hope that at the next 658 meeting he will discourage the issue of any such certificates as final, because really in respect of these disabilities there is no finality about them. It ought to be possible always to reopen them.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
They are always open to that.

Mr. GRIFFITH
I may take it then that they are not final. Of course I was not quite aware of the real effect of the Chelsea terminology in this respect. There is one grievance in mentioning which I am sure I will have the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman. At present, as I understand it, service pensions are included in disability pensions. If it be not so it is well worth while for the Government to have an opportunity of clearing up these things. The point is this: if a man for long service, say, twenty one years,. gets 8d. or 1s. 3d. a day pension, that is taken into account in his disability pension. If that is so, it certainly ought not to be. I think we will all agree about that, because really it is exactly the same thing as if you went into a house, and took money from it, and said to the occupier, "You have this much, this 8d., 10d., or 1s. or whatever it is, and we shall take it." This is really the money the man has earned for long service, and it would be ridiculous, preposterous, and absurd, as well as unjust, to take it into the calculation. I ought to put one other matter. I am feeling I am having the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman so much that I am encouraged to go on. That other matter is this: The question of whether the illness was due to or aggravated by service? This is a very important point. I only just want to say a word or two about it, because it is an obvious one Of course it is very difficult for a medical man to decide how far a man's condition is due to or aggravated by service. With regard to the voluntary service man, it might be said to him, "When you asked to join the Army you held yourself out as fit." There is something to be said against him on that ground, but there is nothing to be said in regard to the conscript, because he has been taken against his will. You have said to him, "You have to join the Army, and we take you." But I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that both the volunteer and the conscript were passed by medical men, and I am told that more than 10,000 have had to leave the Army on account of medical unfitness.

659

§ Mr. HENDERSON
Fifty thousand have one out without any pension.

Mr. GRIFFITH
These men have broken down under the strain. Their hearts have gone wrong or something of that kind. The curious thing is that these men who were found fit to join the Army, the moment they are discharged lose their separation allowance—of course, quite rightly I do not complain about that— and all they get is half of £2; that is a sovereign, and 17s. 7d. for a suit of clothes. I am sure there is not a man in this House who would like to be a party to any scheme that would make such a state of affairs as that possible. Here is the case of a man who comes out to fight, offers himself to serve his country, gives up his capital—for his health is this man's capital; it is his power to earn and make money—he gives up that to his country, and then he goes back and gets the half of £2 as a gratuity, and 17s. 7d. for a suit of clothes. I am quite sure that this is a state of affairs which the right hon. Gentleman will be very anxious to remedy at the very earliest moment. I would make this suggestion to him. In most cases with regard to disabled men who go to Chelsea there are doctors who say whether the man's condition is due to, or aggravated by his service. It is impossible for a man to decide that unless the man knew his pre-war condition. There are no data for those doctors at Chelsea. I do not say whether they are right or wrong, but I do say they have not got the information to make it possible for them to form any opinion, and, as an hon. Member here says, they do not ask for it. I submit that it is only elementary justice that when a tribunal of doctors comes to the conclusion that a man's condition is not due to, or aggravated by his service, that at least the doctor who passed him for service, and his own doctor who knew him before that, should be asked to come and give evidence.
Then, having gone to Chelsea, and the Chelsea authorities having determined and awarded the pension, the man goes on to Baker Street. I am sure I do not want to say anything about the Baker Street Organisation. I understand quite what is to be said. They are organised in a hurry, and there are great difficulties. But I am sure that the House would be very anxious not to have a renewal of the long queue of injured men waiting outside Baker Street. We know there have been very serious delays in Baker Street administra- 660 tion. I heard of one case where five letters and a prepaid telegram were sent, and no notice was taken of them. When the attention of the authorities was called to that case they said they could not lay their hands on any of the letters or the telegram. Those things are very unfortunate. You do not condemn an organisation by one case of that kind; but one of the great advantages that I think will accrue from this amalgamation or absorption in one building is to make such a delay as that impossible. It will be a very valuable thing to have old Chelsea on one side of the building and the new Baker Street on the other, so that a man can pass from one to the other and eventually reach the place where he takes out his first drift money. I am bound to say I think that that will be a great thing for the men. There was one other matter about which I was not quite clear from the explanation we had. One of the difficulties of a Coalition Government with no Opposition is that no one has a chance of knowing beforehand the nature of a Bill that is to be introduced. But I make no complaint of that. The question I refer to is the position of the Statutory Committee. I found it a little difficult to gather from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman, necessarily not the very full way, explained the matter, how the question now stands. As I understand it, the Statutory Committee is to be left all the duties it now has except the duty it had of saying what the supplemental pension is to be. That is what I understood generally to be the position under the Bill. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, apart altogether from fixing the supplemental pension, there are very important functions for the Statutory Committee to perform. I hope, as he hoped, that the Statutory Committee will do its work and will do it in conjunction with the local committees all throughout the country. I think myself that there is only one way, and there is only one way, of making this pension scheme a success, and that is to have a strong central body with all these local committees throughout the country who alone know the local facts. I do not know now quite who is going to settle the supplemental pension.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I tried to make that clear. Any supplementation the Statutory Committee have done out of public funds I hope we will be able to do by the Board of Pensions. In other words, instead of a man going to Chelsea and getting the 661 whole or part of a flat rate, and then going on to a Statutory Committee, or, as in some cases, being sent from one Department to another, we hope that one decision will cover his entire case. That is what we propose to do. The Statutory Committee is going to be kept, and powers to be taken for that purpose, as an Advisory Committee to the new Department, and, in fact, the Bill provides not only that it should be an Advisory Committee, but if there should arise circumstances to make it necessary for us to devolve upon it certain powers we possess, we have the power to do so.

§ Mr. HOGGE made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
The Statutory Committee as it now consists may be the Advisory Committee.

Mr. GRIFFITH
I should think twenty-seven rather too many to advise. But these are Committee points in the main, and I will not dwell upon them now. As I understand the matter, what the right hon. Gentleman has just said is a very important consideration. He has mentioned that, instead of doing the matter in twice, it will be done in once, and that instead of old Chelsea plus the Statutory Committee, the equivalent of the new Chelsea will do the whole thing at once. I think that is a very great improvement, and I think we ought to be very gratified at that aspect of the Bill. It seems to me that, in that event, what are called supplemental pensions are gone or are superseded by the new arrangement. The result I have no doubt will be, and I for one am gratified, that the men will get in the first instance higher pensions. There are cases which are very familiar to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is the case of the widow with two children who gets 10s., plus 5s., plus 3s. 6d., totalling 18s. 6d. In the country in a case of that kind you allow 4s. 6d. for rent, and that only allows 14s. for sustentation for the home. It may be said that the woman ought to go out and work. I think the woman ought to stay at home and look after her children, and I think she would be doing much better work for the State in doing so than in trying to get some extra amount in wages. My view is that there is one test for the minimum pension, and that is that the minimum pension in each case should be sufficient to 662 keep the members of the family concerned in a state of physical efficiency. That is the least thing we can do, and the Statutory Committee might well take in hand various other matters. There is one matter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, voluntary funds, which is a very important matter. I understand he is going to commit voluntary funds to the care of the Statutory Committee. I am not quite sure whether that is a good plan or not.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I do not commit them. I do not take the power from them. They have the power now to raise what voluntary funds they can. They have been doing so, and as to the amount they have raised I am not informed. But I propose to leave them the power to go on with that kind of work, if they get the voluntary funds.

Mr. GRIFFITH
I was referring to the funds that had not been collected by the Statutory Committee but by local county organisation, and, of course, the Statutory Committee has no right over them. I know of one county, Pembrokeshire, which has almost an ideal system in this respect. It has raised over £12,000 in twelve months by voluntary contributions. It has made contributions of £2,000 each to the Red Cross Fund and the National Fund, and it also prepared, upon recommendation from district committees, to make lump sum payments in these early cases. In a matter of that kind you would have to rely on local voluntary effort. When a man comes home he may want furniture; he may have lost his previous home and require new furniture, or he may want to start a small business. That is where you get in touch with these voluntary agencies, and I am sure it is all for the good that the Pensions Board should consider them favourably and advise them on every possible opportunity. The essentials, I think, have been attained in this Bill. The essential is, first of all, a strong central authority to look after the work. The second is, that when disabled men are discharged a pension or State contribution shall immediately follow that discharge without delay and without hindrance. Everybody is, I know, interested in this matter, but there are some Members in the House who have not the same responsibility as others. There are certain Members who have not taken part in recruiting. Their responsibility is 663 less. But all of us, and nearly all of us in the Chamber at present have done so, who have taken part in recruiting owe a personal responsibility to these men. I feel quite sure that neither the country nor the House would be gratified unless we do full justice and full generosity to the men who have fought and protected us in this War.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I am sure we all congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the clearness with which he has analysed the conditions as they exist and upon the criticisms which he has offered upon this Bill. I do not propose at this stage to make anything in the nature of a long speech with regard to the introduction of this Bill, as obviously we should all prefer to see the Bill in print before we offer criticism which we might regret afterwards. But there are one or two points which I think ought to be understood clearly before the Bill is printed and which affect the future, not only of the question of pensions, but other cognate questions. I will mention one that has not been referred to at all. As the House is aware, when a man joins the Army he is entitled to apply to the Civil Liabilities Committee for certain relief in regard to rent, rates, insurance, educational fees, and so on. In practice what has happened is something like this, that in the case of the men who joined the Army in the early days and whose wives and dependants adjusted themselves to the conditions that obtained on account of the small separation allowance, when they applied to the Civil Liabilities Committee they received much smaller grants than the wives and dependants of soldiers who have been conscripted, and who, during the days when the voluntary men have been fighting, have been receiving the benefit of increased wages. That is to say that the wives and dependants of those who have made sacrifices get less than the wives and dependants of those who have been taken last. What is going to happen is this, that when those people come back and are restored again to ordinary industrial conditions a great many of them will be in need of help from the State. There is the man with the small business and the wife and family have broken up the home and gone into rooms. It will be absolutely necessary, in my opinion, to retain all the functions of the Civil Liabilities Com- 664 mittee so that at that moment the help of the State may be at hand for those people. I want to ask the Paymaster-General whether the Cabinet or this small Board which he proposes to set up have taken into consideration at all this question of Civil Liabilities—whether, for instance, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, who is to be one of the members of this new Board of Pensions, and who speaks for the Government in this House on this subject, represents the Civil Liabilities Committee as well as the Statutory Committee on the new Board? Probably the Paymaster General can tell us at once whether the question of Civil Liabilities is included at all within the scope of the Bill.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
It has been decided that the Civil Liabilities Committee should continue its work as heretofore without any connection with the Board of Pensions.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend. I can quite understand the Cabinet coming to that decision with regard to the giving of grants up to the period of recruiting men for the Army and Navy, but I am putting a fresh point which I hope the Board will take into consideration.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I think I ought to make the point clear. I endeavoured to make it clear that we are trying to do pensions work pure and simple. We are not taking separation allowances. I think the work of the Civil Liabilities Committee might be described as supplementation of separation allowance, or a kind of super separation allowance, and, therefore, that work, in the first instance not coming under the Board of Pensions, we do not think we should interfere with the Civil Liabilities Committee.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. It is an arguable point as to whether the increase is a super-separation allowance or a super-pension. It certainly would be a super-pension in the case of a widow of any soldier requiring to find a new home and new surroundings after the man had been killed in the War, if in receipt now of Civil Liabilities Allowance. However, I do not press the point except as to how far the Board has decided to extend the scope of their operations. It was said in the speech of the Paymaster-General that the question of Service pensions is to be reserved 665 to the War Office, and is not to come within the scope of the new Pensions Board. I should like to be quite clear on that point, and to know exactly why that decision should be come to. After all, this new Pensions Board is going to deal with the whole question of pensions. Why should the War Office, as a separate Department, seek to keep within its control the service pensions of these men? Why should it not be all under the one institution? A man in receipt of his service pension is entitled now to use both Chelsea and the Statutory Committee. Even if the War Office retain the right to deal with the Service portion of a man's pension he will again have the right to go to the new Board for supplementation of his Service pension. There you are introducing just one of the little things that create all the correspondence to which my right hon. Friend referred.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
A man will not have to go to the Board of Pensions for his supplementation, because that is one of the forms of supplementation which is reserved.

§ Mr. HOGGE
Exactly; but then he will be drawing his Service pension from the War Office and his disability pension from the new Board. That will be drawing pensions from two sources. Is that not making two places to which that man shall go or write, and does it not show how the correspondence will be increased? I do not make very much of it, because, as a matter of fact, all of us in this House have had to grow up with the subject of pensions during the War, and I am not surprised that the Paymaster-General does not know sometimes any more than I or somebody else. In trying to make a way through the mass of Army Orders dealing with the question one is reminded of Topsy, who "growed up." This pension scheme has grown up during the War, and I should like to meet the man who knows every point of it thoroughly.

An HON. MEMBER
You are advertised as such!

§ Mr. HOGGE
I am sure my hon. Friend who says that I am advertised as such regrets that he is not so advertised. At any rate, one of the most foolish questions put to the Paymaster-General was the question of the hon. Member as to whether the Government would deprive this Committee of money as supplementation of pensions. As that supplementation is a 666 Government Grant, it is quite obvious to the meanest intellect that money would not be taken away from the Committee. With regard to the Admiralty, the only thing the Admiralty will have to do with this new Board is the kind of assistance that a naval man now could get from the Statutory Committee In that case, I want to know what the representative of the Admiralty is doing on this Board at all What right has the Admiralty to have any opinion on this Board at all if that is all the function that is to remain to them? I agree with my right hon. Friend that this House will be wise to insist on one of two things—either the Admiralty must go clean out or it must come clean in. If the Admiralty is going to insist upon running its own flat-rate pensions, then the best thing to do is for this House to give the Admiralty greater elasticity, so that they can give every sailor, and every dependant of every sailor, the equivalent in that flat Admiralty is going to insist upon running application to the Statutory Committee. I am perfectly certain the House will make a mistake if they do not decide. I would prefer that the Admiralty should come in, but if it is determined that the Admiralty are going to stop out, then let them stop out altogether, and let us have an Admiralty system of pensions under the roof of the Admiralty dealing with everything a sailor and his dependants can get; and, on the other hand, a War Office arrangement of pensions under one roof dealing entirely with soldiers; but do not let the new President of the Board of Pensions be interfered with at all by any official representing the Admiralty, if the Admiralty are not going to bring in their flat rate of pensions as well as the other.
There is another point I want to make, and it is a very important one. The Paymaster-General will recollect, and I think the House will recollect, that the War Office have actually determined upon a scheme whereby all soldiers will be retained in the Army until the Army has exhausted upon those men the medical and scientific ability which resides with the Army authorities. At any rate, the Secretary of State for War only the other day, in reply to a question, stated that the War Office were considering a scheme of that kind. He gave us to understand, I think, that General Sir Alfred Keogh, who is the authority on this question. had submitted a Report, and he led the House to understand—I may be wrong, and I should be glad to know exactly where we 667 are—that the War Office had practically made up their mind to take up that position. I am making that point for this reason: If—and I think it is the right thing to do—the War Office retain under military discipline all men until they are fit, or as fit as they possibly can be, to be restored to civil life, it is obvious that some part of the large part of the functions of the Statutory Committee go. That is to say, you do not want the War Office looking after the care, training, and, may be, employment—certainly the care and training of soldiers—and at the same time any Committee of the Statutory Committee taking up that same work.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I think my hon. Friend is making a deduction from the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that is not fully borne out by the language used. It is true that the whole subject is under consideration. No decision has yet been reached, I think, by the War Office, and certainly not by the Cabinet. I believe that what is contemplated is that training may be begun while the later stages of the cure are being effected, but I do not think there is any intention of carrying the training to the extent it might be carried if the work was taken up by the War Office or left to be carried out by the Statutory Committee or any other authority. It is a sort of introductory stage, while the later stages of the cure are effected. So far as I am aware, there is no intention at present of going beyond that.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I am, of course, only asking in order that the position may be cleared up, because it is obvious that if the War Office were making a clear-cut line, you might have the War Office, while caring for men, actually training them towards some new employment, and as part of the function of the Statutory Committee is the care, training and employment of men, it is also obvious it would be a duplication of work. I only want that to be borne in mind in view of discussion we may have in Committee on the Bill. There are only two other points to which I want to refer this afternoon. One is with regard to the use that is going to be made of the local War Pensions Committees. I am one of those people who believe in expressing what we want to do in pensions in a very short way. I think we want pensions controlled nationally at 668 the centre, and, as far as possible, civically at the extremities. That is to say, you want responsibility both in the national administrative body and in the body in the municipalities. I hope that in the scheme the local War Pensions Committees will not be destroyed, but that they will be used for carrying out the intentions and purposes of the Central Committee which it is proposed to set up here in London. There may be some changes in those Committees. I dare say hon. Members have ideas with regard to salutary changes in those Committees, but the main function will remain. The last point I want to make is in the form of a very simple suggestion. I put it to the Prime Minister in a question the other day, and he replied that it was receiving favourable consideration. It is the question raised by my right hon. Friend as to whether pensions are final, and the new Pensions Minister said that it did not mean final, and that the pensions could be revised at any time.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
Perhaps I did not make it sufficiently clear. It is quite true that the word "final" is used, but it is used under the supposition that circumstances do not change. After all, it may be in the interest of a man himself. A wound may be healed and then break out again, and we have to leave the right to the individual to ask for his case to be reopened, and if the circumstances have changed we have to abandon the word "final" and have the case re-examined. That is in the interest of the soldier.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I was thinking in Borne cases that you had pensions actually reduced, but here is a point I want to press upon my right hon. Friend As he knows, many who go through this War will come back strained and stressed in very many ways. It will not be possible many times for those men to locate the disability from which they are suffering, any more than the doctors will. In other words, the disability may be produced seven or tea years after. It is limited by seven years now in the papers that we have. I make this suggestion—I do not know if it is original or even praiseworthy or practicable—but I would like every man, both in the Navy and the Army, to have a nominal pension, so that he would have the right at any moment to raise the question of his pension being revised. I do not care how small the pension is, and it might be only a penny a day, but 669 it would put the man in the position of having a pension, and if after the course of years his disability merged he would then be entitled to go to the new pensions authority and say, "Here am I; the wound I am recovering from is directly attributable to my service in the Army, and may I have this small pension revised?" My suggestion may be impracticable, but you have already limited it to seven years, and if his disability merges in the eighth year he is not entitled to a pension. Probably it will be said that you must draw the line somewhere, but possibly you might meet it by putting every soldier who has his disability paper in possession of a piece of paper that entitles him to go at any moment and put in a claim for a pension. I hope my right hon. Friend will take that point into consideration I know it is a new suggestion, but I do not want him to reply offhand, and I shall be quite content if he turns it over in his mind, as I want to preserve this right to any soldier or sailor should his disability be traceable to the effect of the War, and I want him to be able to go for pension in spite of any limitations which are upon such pensions now, I wish my right hon. Friend every good luck in the task to which he has put his hand. He was good enough to say in his speech something which was very frank, but very true, that the public were beginning to lose confidence in the administration of pensions. I am sorry to say that that is very true, and it is a good thing to have a Pensions Minister who realises that and is not afraid to say it in the House of Commons. I would also like to say that if my right hon. Friend enters upon his task with a firm determination to administer the subject of pensions generously, quickly, and effectively, I am certain there is no piece of work to which he has ever given his attention out of which he will get more satisfaction for himself.

§ Sir HENRY CRAIK
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) on the constant interest which he has shown in regard to this question, but perhaps he will allow me to criticise what he has accomplished on one or two points. The hon. Member has repeatedly within my hearing in this House raised questions as if they were perfectly new which have been under the most careful consideration of the Statutory Committee.

670

§ Mr. HOGGE
That is quite likely with all of us, and my hon. Friend is now going to say something that I said last week.

§ Sir H. CRAIK
I think the hon. Member might give the Statutory Committee credit for having studied these questions, and not receiving all these suggestions as if they had dropped from the sky. One point the hon. Member raised was as to the differentiation between those who had enlisted in the Army voluntarily and those who had waited until compulsion was in force. If the hon. Member will believe me, I can assure him that there are many difficulties which I am sure, if he attended in the same room with us, would puzzle him, in coming to a settlement. But we have come to a settlement on this point. We have been in correspondence with the Treasury, and this very day we had proposals in regard to our suggestions from the Treasury which makes me certain that we shall come to the settlement of a very difficult point indeed. It is not because the matter has not been considered, but because, perhaps, we are better aware of the real difficulties than the hon. Member can be. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the absurdity of payments not being made together. That is another point to which we have given the most earnest attention, and we find no difficulty, either with the Admiralty or the War Office, in making the-arrangement which would be most convenient to the recipients of pensions. With regard to the care and training, and the part the War Office play in that, the hon. Member spoke as if this was a perfectly new question.

§ Mr. HOGGE
No!

§ Sir H. CRAIK
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not understand what is the crux of the difficulty. Are you not to submit these men to a certain discipline? I have found sometimes that discipline is most helpful to them. It is not quite so easy to continue Army discipline, even for his own benefit, to a man who has been discharged from the Army. It is really a matter of arranging some method by which you are to prolong as far as possible a wholesome discipline, and this is not a very easy matter. In approaching the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced, there is one point upon which all parts of the House will be agreed. If this Bill will in any way help the soldier and the sailor, or their dependants, in their difficulties, if it will 671 improve their position, and enable the nation more generously to discharge the duty which it recognises, I am certain that it will not only be welcome by all hon. Members of this House, but by the nation itself, as well as by our soldiers and sailors. As regards the part which the right hon. Gentleman himself is to take in the work, I have nothing but welcome, and I wish him God speed in any work he has to do in this connection. I am also perfectly prepared to agree with the right hon. Gentleman in a good many of his reasons for the co-ordination which this Bill proposes, and, if that co-ordination will help, it has my hearty support.
We had a Bill dealing with this subject less than a year ago. I would like to ask are we certain that the guidance which we were then given was wrong, and that it is necessary now to pluck up by the roots the whole of the plant which you then put into the ground? Only a year ago you passed a Bill, and you are now coming here and asking for a complete reversal of the principles upon which you constructed that measure, and is it likely that such conduct on the part of the Government does not give rise to confidence in the minds of hon. Members of this House? It is no use concealing the fact that this Bill, as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, however far it goes, in its centre and at the core is a reversal of the principle which you established only last year. That is a very serious question for the House and for the Government. I am sorry when a question of this sort, which is so serious, is under discussion, the House is so sparsely attended, and even the Treasury Bench has only a single representative upon it. What was the central point of the original Pensions Bill of 1915, which was the result of the deliberations of the Select Committee? That Select Committee had to deal with the complicated question, how to unite together the fixed and definite flat-rate pensions with an extra measure of generosity to be dealt out to meet special circumstances. You could not raise the flat rate everywhere without an extravagance which would have been unjust to the taxpayers; but it would at the same time be irksome and justifiable for the pension to have been constantly confined and kept down to the flat-rate pension. Therefore there was a complete principle set forth in the scheme of the Committee, and it was embodied in the Bill, and it is that outside 672 the War Office and the Admiralty, outside all the definite and prescribed rules which were to have a universal application, you were to have another authority coming in to act upon its own discretion, free from all political influence, a composite body responsible to the nation, which would be able to add, as circumstances seemed to justify, to the flat rate of pension. That surely was clearly and well thought out, and was a self-evident principle to follow.
6.0 P.M.
Of course, the Statutory Committee certainly was not political, for it was composed of all sorts of elements, representing every section of society and every shade of political opinion. It could not act absolutely on its own free will, because it was obliged to come to terms with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as regards funds, but otherwise it was free to act with a greater measure of generosity than was possible to a Government Department where circumstances seemed to justify it. Are we in the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has laid before us preserving that important principle of an outside, non-political, and non-official authority to revise the pensions granted according to strict and unchangeable rule? That is not what the Bill presumes, and I really would like to press this point upon the right hon. Gentleman. Instead of that principle, you are putting the whole of the pensions into the hands of those who will be bound by official rules, however good and just the direction of the right hon. Gentleman who has introduced the Bill may be; those who must submit the rules annually to Parliament; those who will make estimates corresponding to those rules—an office that will be subject to all the rules and limitations of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and that will not be able at its own discretion to alter the rules in order to meet special circumstances. The whole system which the Select Committee proposed and which the Bill of 1915 constructed is now vanishing under this Bill, and you will have all the pensions settled by one official body. I do not think that is for the advantage of the men or their dependants. It is a serious breach in the continuity of the system you have established, and it will require very strong justification indeed before it is approved by the nation when it comes to understand what is really meant by the Bill. Canada, the most important of all our Dominions, has taken the very opposite course. Canada has seen right to establish a Board 673 independent of political parties and independent of the Government to be the administrator of pensions, and it is a serious matter for our own Government, having established an independent and non-political Board, to proceed now to destroy it in its most essential point. It is all very well to say that a great deal is to be left to the Statutory Committee. I was inclined rather to smile when the right hon. Gentleman gave us that formidable list of functions which, though taking several words to describe, are really very little indeed in substance. We are not to supplement pensions except through voluntary funds. How much of voluntary funds is it probable that a sensible public will put into the hands of a statutory committee which has been deprived by the Government of the power of supplementing pensions out of public funds? It seems to me an absolutely impossible proposal. From those public funds which were assigned for the purpose only two or three weeks ago, the Statutory Committee is not to be allowed to supplement pensions.
The Statutory Committee apparently is to have a fund put into its hands, not to supplement pensions, but to give pensions where the State has absolutely denied them. I understand that this is the case. When the War Office and the Admiralty and the new Pensions Minister have all equally agreed that no pension can be allowed under any circumstances, then the Statutory Committee is to come in and say, "Oh, yes, but we are to have some money allowed us from which we may give a pension in such a case." Is that really a reasonable and a sensible proposition? We are not allowed to come in as a non-official body to supplement those hard and fast line pensions which may be established by warrant, but we may come in to establish new pensions where the future Pensions Minister, the War Office, and the Admiralty are all alike of the opinion that no pension whatever is to be granted. I really cannot understand it, and I trust somebody on the Treasury Bench will be able to give us some explanation of what, as it stands, appears to be a perfectly inexplicable proceeding. The Statutory Committee, this independent body which was established, after all has accomplished something before this new system takes its place. It has established no fewer than 300 local committees. It has drawn up two sets of regulations, regulations for supplemental pensions and regu- 674 lations for supplemental separation allowances. It has realised by hard practice, and by dealing with the facts of the case as they came before them, new difficulties. Is it wonderful that in the original draft of these regulations the Statutory Committee did not foresee all the difficulties which arose in working, and which, along with the Treasury, have been very satisfactorily dealt with? The enormous complication of the question is far greater than hon. Members who criticise us seem to realise. I undertake if any one of those hon. Members, either the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) or my hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Barlow), will come for half an hour into one of our Committee Rooms that I will puzzle him with one of the questions and leave him in a state in which he will find himself absolutely unable to offer a solution either one way or the other.
I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that there should be some means of keeping on foot the two concurrent ideas of a bureaucratic and official rate of pensions and an outside non-official authority which is to give in special circumstances and in special cases where it seems in their discretion necessary an additonal pension. I quite agree with all that the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the necessity of co-ordination. We have seen the difficulties ourselves. He gave us a whole list of reasons why this co-ordination was necessary. First of all, it was to prevent overlapping. I cordially agree with him that the prevention of overlapping is necessary. It was to give authority to representation in this House. I cordially agree there also, and I am certain that the Statutory Committee will be most happy to accept the right hon. Gentleman as their authority and representative in this House. I also cordially agree with him as to wrong methods requiring correcting. If he knew how hard we had fought some of the strict and rigid terms of those Royal Warrants and how we had longed for authority or for legislative power in our own body to revise and overturn those rigid rules, he would know how cordially we welcome that statement. I am perfectly certain that co-ordination in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman will be very useful indeed. I like his controlling power; I like his assimilating power; I like the power to be in his hands of correcting errors, but I do think that he is following a wrong course by taking 675 over himself and into a new and fifth organisation some part of the execution of the work. It would be far better for him to stand above and aloof from the executive. It will be very difficult for him to take into his own hands a certain portion of the executive work and then to coordinate along with that the work done by three or four other bodies all equally subservient to him. It would be far better, and I think he would find it an easier piece of work and a more smooth piece of work, and that he could bring it more surely into his reins, if he simply took the controlling power into his own hands and left the executive where it is. He is leaving the Statutory Board alive in some particulars. I do not attach so much importance to that as he does, but I, in common with all the rest of the Statutory Committee, will be happy to go on.
There will be no more co-ordination now than there was before. I am afraid that the result of his Bill will be to bring in a new agency where there are already too many. It will not give him so much controlling and co-ordinating and directing power superior to all the executive authority as I would have liked to have seen him obtain. Instead of that he is making himself one of those coordinating powers. I do urge the right hon. Gentleman to try if he cannot maintain the principle set up by the Select Committee of an outside authority non-political, always subject to his control, to direct the exercise of that generosity over and above the legal pound of flesh secured by the rules of the Services which I am perfectly certain the nation wishes to exercise and which the Statutory Committee has attempted in its existence hitherto to realise in as liberal and as broad a spirit as possible.

§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
I desire to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon his appointment and upon his statement. I am quite certain if he brings the spirit which he has expressed to-day into his work that many beneficial results will follow. I must confess that it is difficult for any Member to speak upon this subject without seeing the contents of the Bill. Although the statement was explicit, there were many things in which up to the present appear to me to be very complicated and to require further elucidation. In the first place, I should like to ask whether this new Board controlling the pensions is to number more than four, 676 because although these four Gentlemen upon the Front Bench are most able men. it does appear to me to be very extraordinary while we thought, when setting up the Statutory Committee, the number should be about twenty-nine—they were increased from about twenty-one to twenty-nine—

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher)
Twenty-seven.

§ Mr. SAMUEL
And while they were simply dealing with matters of very minor importance in comparison, that the whole of the work of the future pensions of disabled soldiers should be decided by the four men who are to constitute this Board. All I can say is that I rather agree with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench. It appears to me that the duties these gentlemen have to perform will certainly require—if we are to have that expeditious and speedy solution of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks—that the size of this Board shall be enlarged, and that they must sit daily and continually to decide the very important points which arise in connection with the fixing of the disablement pensions. I understand that the Pensions Board is going to take over the work which is now carried on at the Tate Gallery—the work connected with the pensions of widows which does not present very many difficulties, if matters are straightened up, because the pensions for widows and children are on a flat rate, and therefore the pensions come automatically at the end of twenty-six weeks.
The pension of the dependants, however, presents some very serious complications, which will require very great consideration on the part of the Board. In many cases the pensions of the mothers, sisters, and other dependants of the soldiers, are inadequate. A vast amount of correspondence has taken place between the local authorities, Members of Parliament, and the heads of the department at the Tate Gallery. I have myself had something to do with the correspondents, and have seen them personally. I must not complain about the treatment of these pensioners, but I do say that if this Board of four members are going to consider the disablement pensions and also the dependants' pensions which are not flat pensions, the work will be enormous, and certainly I think the Board, with certain alterations, ought to be very much enlarged. The question of the disablement 677 pension is certainly a very wide one, and the dissatisfaction in the country which exists at the present time is with the Chelsea Commissioners. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, in his statement, stated that it is proposed practically to abolish the fixing of these pensions by the Chelsea Commissioners, and to transfer the work of fixing the disablement pensions to the new Pensions Board. I do not quite understand, but at least I have learned, since the discussion that has taken place, that the disablement pension fixed by the Naval Department is not to come within the four corners of the powers of the Pensions Board. That seems to me to point to a very extraordinary state of affairs. I know that there is very little trouble with the Admiralty; I am bound to say that. Still I think that, in the interests of co-ordination and simplification, it would be very much better if the whole of the pensions question were transferred to this Pensions Board, so that there might be uniformity of treatment throughout. I rather agree with the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesea (Mr. Ellis Griffith), and I cannot understand why a representative of the Admiralty should become a member of the Board, and that cases connected with the Admiralty are not to be considered by that Board. It looks to me as if they may be anticipating a transfer, but there can be no co-ordination or simplification if the Admiralty continues to decide these important points in future.
I come now to the special point on which I desire to address the House, and that is the work of the Statutory Committee. I took some little part in the discussion in the House of Commons when the Statutory Committee was created. We had very great hopes that the Statutory Committee would fulfil the expectations that were formed of it, but I am bound to say that the Statutory Committee, right from the very beginning of their work, have caused very great dissatisfaction in the country, because they have never up to the present time trusted local authorities to do this work. That is really the crux of the whole difficulty of the Statutory Committee. They have tried in every possible way to thwart the intentions of the local committee. I believe myself that the nearer you can bring all these questions to the notice of the public through local committees, the sooner you will settle these great problems in the localities. I want to make one or two suggestions; I do not 678 know whether my right hon. Friend will consider them. Personally, I have no complaint to make about my own town. We have had a local committee working there since 1st July. They have done excellent work; I am bound to say that; they are a most representative committee; I have no complaint to make about the constitution of that committee, and they have dealt with no less than 1,250 cases in the course of three months. I have maintained all along that you must bring the local people before the local authorities, and you must trust the local authorities to look at these great problems in view of the fact that there is so much dissatisfaction in the localities, especially about our disabled men.
The Naval and Military War Pensions Act gives the right to any man, woman, or child to make application to the local pensions committee either for pension, separation allowance, or dependence allowance, and this system is giving the utmost satisfaction, because people can go direct to the local pensions committee, who at once deal with their applications. I may say that, so far as my own correspondence on this subject is concerned, it has practically dropped, because the people now are trained to go day by day to the local pensions committee, and that committee inquires about their position, receives information from them, and then enters into correspondence on their behalf. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions in regard to the Statutory Committee. I understand that the Statutory Committee is to retain the supplementary grants which the local committees have been receiving since the Statutory Committee came into operation. We voted £1,000,000, but before that reached them they received £1,000,000 from the Prince of Wales Fund, and the local committees received payments from that sum up to 1st July. Since then the money has come from the Grant made tinder the Naval and Military War Pensions Act. This money is now paid out in the form of supplementary grants—that is to say, granted in the shape of additions to the rent paid by the dependants between 4s. and 8s. It is now paid in the form of a supplementary grant, and it is paid through the local committee.
I understand also that the Statutory Committee is to retain the power of granting supplementary pensions. The supplementary pensions involve many important points, for the reason that the 679 pensions are very often inadequate. Widows or dependants go before the local committee, who have the power to investigate their cases and make their recommendations to the Statutory Committee, who, in turn, make their recommendations as to the additional supplementary pensions. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend this question, which is really a very important one: I understood him to say that the Statutory Committee were to retain the power of paying the supplementary grants and also of dealing with the supplementary pensions through the local committees, but the latter were to raise funds as voluntary funds. I should like to know what became of the recent agitation in London and the municipalities, and among the county councils, all unanimous in their statement that they would not distribute voluntary grants to these people, and that it must be State money. I venture to submit that you cannot raise money in the voluntary sense now. The people have subscribed something like £6,000,000 to the Prince of Wales Fund, and, at this time, it seems to me that the fairest way is that every man in the State, whatever his means, ought to pay his proportion of the taxes towards this fund. I would point out that we have a very large number of rich men in every town who escape when money is contributed in a voluntary sense. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House of Commons and what did he say? There had been a Grant of £1,000,000, and the right hon. Gentleman stated that he was going to make a further Grant, bringing the whole Grant up to £7,500,000. Further, the right hon. Gentleman promised to bring in a Bill dealing with this very object of giving a Parliamentary Grant of no less than £7,500,000 towards three things: One was to pay the supplementary grants; the second was towards the supplementary pensions; and the third was towards the scheme for disabled soldiers. May I ask what has become of all this money?
I would like to ask this question, for the matter must be faced. We have had local committees set up, and there has been this deliberate statement, which is within the knowledge of every member of those committees, that all this money is coming from the State. We have been told that the money is not to be raised in a voluntary sense, and that money raised in a voluntary sense for local funds is to 680 be retained in the localities. But, as I understand it, this new Board is going to increase the pensions of the dependants and the disabled soldiers. If that be so, there is no need for any supplementary pensions. We ought to satisfy ourselves on that point, because if the supplementary pensions were to be paid, then that money coming from the State should be distributed on a settled policy in the country. People will not depend upon charity or on money subscribed voluntarily. Therefore, upon these points I was very much surprised to find, after all this agitation and after all the trouble at which we have been to persuade the Government that the people are resenting this charitable aspect of the grant of this money, that we have come back to the old problem and are to fall back upon the original intention of the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, namely, to depend upon voluntary gifts and not upon State money.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I cannot allow my hon. Friend to state the position in the way he is doing. I think I can claim that there was nothing in my speech to justify that suggestion, rather, the contrary. I tried to show that, instead of having a pension decided under two authorities, the first a flat rate and the other a supplementation, both being paid out of State funds, we are going to do it in one decision, and therefore we must be going to do it out of State funds.

§ Mr. SAMUEL
I quite agree that you are going to pay a flat-rate pension out of State funds.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
That is not a correct representation of the case. I hope the hon. Member will accept it that, if we give a decision, we are not going to give a decision that half the money should come from the State and half from voluntary funds. The whole of the money will come from public funds.

§ Mr. SAMUEL
Let me put the case in this way. The question I have to ask is this: What power is retained by the Statutory Committee to pay supplementary pensions?

§ Sir RYLAND ADKINS
None.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I think I made it perfectly clear that they were going to retain the power to supplement separation allowances and that they could supplement those separation allowances by special grants either out of private funds 681 or public funds—the funds the hon. Member has referred to, that is, the special Grants that were agreed to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think I also made it clear that they were not going to have the right to supplement any pension that was paid under the Board of Pensions out of public funds, whatever they choose to do out of private funds.

§ Mr. SAMUEL
That brings me to the question I have already asked. Is it understood that this new Board will increase the pension up to the level of the pensions now paid, plus the supplementary pension?

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I must ask the leave of the House to intervene again. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that I was not dealing with scales and the whole question of payment. I promised the House, with the consent of the Prime Minister, at an early date, to present a revised scheme that would involve the scrapping of the old Warrants, and I expressed the hope that hon. Members would defer criticism until that scheme was before the House. After all, we are dealing with machinery to-day. I said in my speech that I purposely refrained from dealing with all questions of scales, that I was going to have them reviewed in the light of experience, and that I hoped that I would be able to make some fresh proposals. Surely it is a new thing that before a Ministry has been created and the Minister is appointed he should have to go through the matter as if he had been appointed for a year. I hope the hon. Member is not going to place me in that position.

§ Mr. SAMUEL
I am certainly not going to place the right hon. Gentleman in that position. I am glad he has made this statement clearing up the point. Of course, I defer to my hon. Friend near me because I know the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins) knows everything about these matters. He is in a position to know, and I am not, therefore I ask for information so that I can advise my people. I shall leave that matter until we get it cleared up. The next point to which I should like to call attention is that of the care and training of officers and men. Unless I have wrongly interpreted the speech of my right hon. Friend, I understand that the care and training of officers and men is to be left in the hands of the Statutory Committee, and that the 682 cost of the schemes is to be raised more or less out of public funds or voluntary funds. I should like to see the schemes worked out locally. I should like to see some scheme formulated so that you can get your county councils or borough councils, if necessary, linked up in the different localities, so that they can work out schemes for the training and care of these officers and men. That is what ought to be foreshadowed either by this Board or some other board. Further in every case you ought to have some connection between the discharge of the wounded man at the hospital and the local committees, so that the local committees can see after that man when he arrives. The trouble is that the local committees are ignorant of the arrival of these men. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is a detail."] Yes, it is a detail, but it is a very important one. I believe that very much of this trouble would be mitigated if you could link up the discharge of these men with the local committees so that the local committees could look after them. I am very glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board here because I am dissatisfied with the work of the Statutory Committee with regard to the formation of local committees. I have evidence that there is a great deal of it which is partial and unfair to the local authorities. If the Statutory Committee is to be continued I should like to see its work linked up with the Pensions Board as a big sub-committee working under it and being under its control. I should like to see the Statutory Committee, if it is to continue, place greater confidence in the local authorities. By all means give London its proper powers, but do not send down inspectors to the local authorities to instruct them to do things which mitigate the powers of the local authorities. That is being done at present. All these things cause such unrest among the local authorities that there is great distress as to the policy and method of the Statutory Committee. They have brought it upon themselves, and until they alter their policy that unrest will continue.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)
Before I come to the question immediately before us, which is, after all, one of administration, I want to make, if I may, two or three general observations. Of course, we all cordially agree that those who defend the Flag by land and sea 683 have the first claim upon our gratitude. If they are broken by the effort they make on our behalf no obligation can be more sacred than the obligation to succour and care for them. If they fall in our cause the same is true of our duty to minister to the needs of those they leave behind. We are all agreed upon that. Speaking generally—I must say this notwithstanding the Debate of to-day—the scales Parliament has approved for separation allowances for wives and children and other dependant relatives, the provision made for disabled soldiers and sailors, the pensions provided for the widow and orphan, the placing of a very large sum of public money at the disposal of a public authority charged to see that the possible inapplicability of flat rates to the widely varying conditions in civil life of those who are now fighting with the armed Forces of the Crown may be met to some extent by supplementary grants, and, finally, the commission laid upon the Civil Liabilities Committee to give special assistance in matters of rent, insurance premiums, house-purchase instalments, school fees, and so on, in cases where serious hardship would be caused on account of inability to meet financial obligations by reason of having undertaken military service—I say emphatically that all these things show how seriously Parliament has sought to reflect the national sentiment and to discharge an obligation which I have deliberately and properly called a sacred obligation.
Only those who are familiar with the way in which the State discharged its obligations in the past can fully appreciate the enormous advance represented by the provisions made to-day. Hon. Members have said —I have said—that we are not going to have repeated the spectacle of the war-worn veteran with his row of war medals sweeping a crossing and invoking the charity of the benevolent. On that we are all agreed. I go further. I say that with the provision now made there is no reason why this spectacle should recur. Notwithstanding all that, frankly I am always glad, if I may say so with respect, when the House discusses this problem. It cannot be better employed. Every time we discuss it the warm sympathy of hon. Members and their practical acquaintance, as the result of representations made to them first-hand, with the necessities of the case, add to our knowledge, and, I hope, improve our adminis- 684 tration. But the House, very properly, devotes itself to the weak spots., therefore the real truth about the whole field of operations is apt to be obscured and a wrong impression is, to some extent, created. That is a pity, because it looks as if we are really not appreciating our duty in regard to this sacred matter. I feel so strongly about it that I am not disposed to apologise for reminding the House and the country quite shortly and in a most summarised form of the nature of the present provision as a whole. Take the separation allowances to sailors' wives and children. They are quite new. There was no separation allowance in the Navy before this War. For soldiers' wives and children they are on a scale which is more generous than in the past, and are not now limited by the "marriage on the strength" condition of eligibility. Before this War the War Office was paying 1,100 such separation allowances to wives and children. They cost £35,000 a year. I imagine that the House has some idea of the revolution caused by the recognition of responsibility involved in the striking out of the "marriage on the strength" qualification of eligibility.
As regards dependants —mothers, fathers, sisters, and other relatives—this provision is quite new. We had nothing like it before. With regard to widows and children, you must remember that before this War to be eligible as a soldier's widow the woman had to be married on the strength when her husband was alive, and the pension she then received was 5s. for the lowest rank and 1s. 6d. for each orphan. The fact that she had to be married on the strength while her husband was alive, otherwise she was not eligible, very rigidly narrowed the award. I wonder whether hon. Members have any idea how rigidly that did narrow the award. They know the new rates both for widows and orphans. They know how favourably they compare with the rates of the past. They know, further, how much more liberal, after all is said and done, the grants to the soldiers and sailors, partially and totally disabled, are, increased as they are for the first time in the case of married men. In the old days, married or single, no distinction was made in these disability pensions. Beyond all this comes the Statutory Committee. Good as these flat rates of allowances and pensions are and enormously as they have improved upon the past, cases of hardship will arise owing to 685 the extraordinary conditions of the present War under which there are serving with the armed forces of the Crown men whose social conditions in civil life vary in the widest possible way, the men whose varying conditions in civil life cover pretty well the whole social field. What did we do about it? We appointed a Statutory Committee with local committees having the local and intimate knowledge which State Departments cannot hope to have. Over and above the flat rate provision, costing many millions of money a year for the War period, we gave that Committee in effect another £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 of public money. It prepared scales of supplemental grants for applications to proper cases. Hon. Members have had those scales in the two sets of draft Regulations prepared by the Statutory Committee in their hands. They may not agree, no doubt, with every detail of those Regulations, naturally, but, as regards the purpose behind them and the painstaking their preparation must have involved, they represent to me very remarkable State documents indeed. I can assure the House there was nothing like it in the old days. Over and above all this there is the Civil Liabilities Committee at work in the field of operations for which it is responsible.
I at once admit delay in settling cases. In the enormous pressure of claims and the inability of poor people to find their way through the maze of official regulations for the first time, I am afraid that has been inevitable. Decisions based upon existing warrants and Orders that failed to give satisfaction there may have been. Views may and do differ on questions of attributability, degree of impairment, and whether contracted in or aggravated by military service, or neither. I admit that many complaints fall under these categories. Officials whose discretion is strictly limited and prescribed by definite hard and fast rules and regulations may have given awards that seemed to lack generosity and breadth of spirit. What can they do? They have the Exchequer and Audit Department at their elbow all the time. But with this provision before me and bringing to every consideration of the problem a mind disposed to criticism, because of old associations and old affections—and they are as dear to me as any other Member of the House—I say that, broadly speaking, I am satisfied in the main that the desire of the country has been fairly met by this provision. It may 686 here and there need review in the light of experience certainly. The Paymaster General has told the House that it will get it. Of course it will get it. Satisfied as I am in the main with the measure of State assistance rendered, I am not less gratified, and no one could be, by the way the men themselves seek to meet their responsibilities. Look at these simple and eloquent facts. The men of the Navy are sending home to their wives and other relatives every month from their pay £775,500. They have £1,264,000 now in the Naval Savings Bank, as against £300,000 before the War, and, of course, they have other investments in the Post Office Savings Banks and elsewhere, and the officers and men of the Fleet have between them invested in War Loan and Exchequer Bonds over £100.000.
Having said that, let me come to the Bill. What we are here mainly discussing is, by common consent, administration. Those who call for a separate State Department and Minister for this work do so because they want prompt, smooth, uniform handling of cases. They want to avoid overlapping and waste, they want this State aid to go to the right place by the readiest process, and of course they want quick appreciation and recognition of the places where modifications, even of this provision, may prove in the light of actual experience to be necessary, and they say, "In view of the enormity and perplexity of the problem created by the War, the only way to get this promptitude, uniformity and co-ordination, this reduction of delay to a minimum, is to take it right away from the War Office and the Admiralty, and create a new Department ad hoc, with a Minister directly responsible to Parliament. It is a very attractive proposition. It seems a perfectly simple way out, and it seems at once to give aboslute recognition to our proper sense of the nature of our responsibilities. Do not let anyone imagine, however, that the creation of the most perfect machinery is going to solve all these problems. Human problems are never solved by machinery alone. You want much more than the most perfect machinery. You want large hearted, sympathetic men and women to work upon it, with human patience and human kindness, and that you have got and will get. But even then, whatever your machinery, do not let anyone suppose, human nature being what it is, that there will not be any more complaining. 687 This ad hoc solution, in so far as this Bill adopts it, appears to be inevitable in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Were it not for those circumstances, to be quite frank, I should oppose any form of divorcement of this function from the Army and the Navy.
That is not a mere narrow, Departmental view. In my view it is the duty of the Secretary of State on the one hand and of the First Lord of the Admiralty on the other to direct, to administer and to preside over the care of those who serve them, even when they have ceased to be effective fighting units. To me that is an ideal deeply rooted in sentiment and service tradition. I speak quite sincerely when I say that it is very dear to me, and I am quite sure it is dear to every officer in command; but, of course, I have to face facts, and if the work is so enormous I may have to sacrifice my ideal on the altar of practicability. The great complexity, the novelty, the enormous volume of the problem as affecting the New Army, throw me back as a practical man on the ad hoc solution for the Army, so far as it is adopted in this Bill, and I at once admit that what I may call the sentimental and service nature of my objection to this divorcement of function does not lie at all strongly when I contemplate the case of the New Army. Further, to the extent that it does lie, the Government proposals meet it by retaining to the War Office the long service pension. The Army is really now largely a civilian Army. Its military record and associations, though glorious to a degree, amazingly glorious in the circumstance—I am never tired of contemplating with pride the way the newest battalion of every regiment thinks only of living up to the highest traditions of the oldest—are not so long-standing and professional as in this case to make my objection to divorcement of function at all serious. Its long-service pensions are few, its War disability pensions, its war problems of all kinds, are many. Therefore, if I may speak my own thoughts for what they are worth, though frankly I do not like this divorcement, it is in this case, and as proposed by this Bill, probably the best thing to do in the circumstances, and it is put to us in such a way in this scheme as to conserve for the military Service those responsibilities which permanent Service conditions and relationships demand should not be severed and put apart.
688 7.0 P.M.
Let the House consider how different is the case of the Navy. Do not for heaven's sake say, "Here comes a mere Departmental marionette, dancing at the bidding of a narrow officialism, who is simply anxious to aggrandise his own office," because it really is not so. If I thought handing this work over to this new civil authority would improve matters I should be its strongest advocate. My duty to those I love and respect would compel me to that course. We are a comparatively small family. We are a long-service family. War has not seriously altered the fundamental basis of our existence. Certainly we remain, as we always have been, a fairly homogenous family. It is true we have recruited for the War only through the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and the Royal Naval Division, but war has not brought with it, as regards our personnel, the changes and expansion which it has to the Army. It has not seriously strained our machinery. Our life service pensions are, and will be, please God, many. Our war disability pensions, our widows' and orphans' pensions, are, comparatively speaking, not many. We have no regimental depots wholly unrelated in many cases to the man's domicile, through which our documents have to come and go, as is the case with the War Office. All our work is done under one roof. All Service records are under that roof. The final naval medical authority is there. You simply walk across a corridor with your facts about a case, and all the other relevant facts are at your disposal on the other side of the corridor. The work is done by men, one and all, imbued by the fine sentiment that the Lords Commissioners of the Navy are the little fathers of the Fleet, and that their responsibility towards the sailor and those he leaves behind does not close when he is laid aside and broken, or when he has passed away. It would be, I am deeply convinced, a very serious sterilisation of the function which we are all proud to carry out if we, the Commissioners of the Navy, were to have divorced from us the care of the disabled sailor and his widow and orphans when he has died in our service. That is the heart of my plea. I speak for others as well as myself when I say that it has been at all times, and particularly during the strain of the War, a real solace to have been called upon to bear this responsibility. I know that my view is fully 689 shared, not only by the Sea Lords and the civilian members of the Board, but by the Accountant-General and his officers, by the Director of Greenwich Hospital and his officers, and also by all naval officers of the Fleet and by men of the lower deck themselves. Further, being a little family, and fully recognising that our responsibility does not close at the moment when the sailor is no longer an effective fighting unit, we have, as I say, under our roof, the most precise and detailed information of the man's Service career and medical history. Of course, we have always been glad, and shall always be glad, we have always been ready, and shall always be ready, to receive assistance from the Statutory Committee and its local committees, and, indeed, from any other responsible body, to enable us more equitably to make our rewards.
The House properly wants to cut down delay to an irreducible minimum. Separation for us means delay. We should still have to keep our records and pass them on to the new Board. If it were not expeditious in its movements—and I ought not, in all honesty, to suggest that with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Henderson) as its president—we should stand helplessly by as the result of a delay for which we were not responsible and over which we should have no control. I do beg the House in this matter to let well alone. I beg the House not to break an ancient and fine tradition. It involves differentiation of treatment, but differentiation fully justified in the circumstances. The two Services are now themselves fundamentally differentiated. I may be asked, What about uniformity and co-ordination? As to that I would say that we have always been at the greatest pains to consult beforehand the War Office in regard to the Regulations to be set forth in the Royal Warrants and Orders in Council, respectively. If it is thought necessary that there should be still closer co-ordination, pooling of information and of administrative experience, we should be only too ready to lend ourselves to its development. Certainly, if for no other reason than this, a representative of the Board of Admiralty may very well find a place on the new Board, as the Bill proposes. That will help us both. Of course, the criticism that you cannot make an effective Board out of four men already fully engaged was certain to arise. That is the half-timer criticism. Look at it. The President is already engaged on this work as Pay- 690 master-General. It will simply give him more control and more direct executive responsibility; and quite right too. Two of the other three members will probably have less to do in this respect, because the Board will take over some of the work they are now doing. The third, myself, will simply go on with the Admiralty part of it, if the House will let me, as I have done for nearly nine years now, and for the rest I shall be brought into direct touch with the new Board, which will certainly be good for me and my work, and may, it is remotely conceivable, be not without value to the new Board.
After all, this is a problem of day by day practical administration. It is all very fine to talk of root and branch methods, of getting everybody under one roof by a stroke of the pen and all that, but you must have regard to existing methods and institutions and adapt and use their experiences. We want the thing well done, even if the shibboleth of brand-new uniformity is not theoretically satisfied in the scheme of this Bill. I may be told that differentiation in the method of administration I am advocating may lead to overlapping and waste. With great respect I would say that those who may advance that argument are under a confusion of thought. That there has been overlapping and waste I do not deny, perhaps to a serious extent. But that is not because of duplication of awards from public funds by the Admiralty on the one hand and the War Office on the other. They are so rare as to be quite negligible. Neither can it arise because of duplication of awards by the Admiralty on the one hand and the new Pensions Board on the other. Overlapping and waste arise because the local dispensers of private and public assistance from other than Parliamentary Votes are not always fully aware of what the recipients are already receiving or are entitled to receive from the public purse. Therefore, it is very necessary to keep the distinction well in mind, because the argument in favour of an ad hoc authority to prevent overlapping and waste is directed to a quarter in which overlapping and waste do not and cannot exist. I would most certainly insist that all those charged with the administration of funds of any sort for the relief of soldiers and sailors and their relatives should be kept closely informed each as to what the others are doing. Even if all the arguments I have advanced were not at my disposal. I have to point this out, 691 that the Army problem is surely quite big enough and quite novel enough for this new administration to make a start with. It will have its hands pretty full with that problem alone. For the mere sake of symmetry and a nicely designed piece of new machinery—which some of my hon. Friends think is the one and only solution for all the many difficulties of this most complex problem—do not overload the thing by piling on that which is well and properly done elsewhere. I am afraid I have unduly kept the House, but I thought it desirable to have our case fully stated at the outset. I repeat my appeal to the House to let us alone. I repeat it on service grounds' and on sentimental grounds. I repeat it in the full confidence that I am not asking the House to establish and maintain inefficiency; quite the contrary. If I thought the interests of the men who serve us so loyally and the interests of their dependants would be better served by a change, conscience would compel me to advocate it. I do not. Therefore, with the utmost confidence, I appeal to the House to let well alone.

Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW
I must begin by congratulating the right hon. Gentleman upon two things—first of all the tactful ingenuity with which he used this Bill as a peg on which to hang certain preliminary remarks; and, secondly, the very able and skilful defence he made of what I venture still to think, in spite of the excellent case he has presented, is one of the grave defects of the Bill now presented to the House. I cannot pretend to criticise his defence with the same skill with which he put it forward. He has at his disposal not only great personal ability, but great resources of information. But may I draw attention to one or two points which strike me at once, as an amateur from an Admiralty point of view, but as a professional from the pension point of view. Our case a priori is that this pension work is civilian work. It is not fighting work. The work of the great fighting departments is to win the War, and everything which relieves them of the burden of this purely civilian work— agitating, irritating, minute work—is a benefit to them as fighting departments. Let me come to his defence. He says, "Yes, but the problem is different for the New Army and, so to speak, for the old Navy. The problem is so different for the Army because you have enrolled instead of three or four hundred thousand 692 men five millions or six millions of men; while in the Navy, although the numbers have increased, they have not increased in anything like the proportion of increase in the Army. The Navy, therefore, remains a long-service institution. The right hon. Gentleman admitted, however, that they have taken into the Navy a considerable number of short service men. Then, on his own showing, the Admiralty have to come in with the arrangements of the new Board in regard to supplementary pensions. Therefore they are not standing out altogether. Under those circumstances they run a risk, and I think it is rather an unpleasant risk from a Departmental point of view, that they may have to refer a case which has been denied a supplementary pension by the Admiralty to a Board presided over by he Pensions Minister for the decision of the Board. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs. The Admiralty are not standing out for all purposes.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
They go to the Statutory Committee now.

Mr. BARLOW
I know you do, but my point is that it must be aye or no, whether you go in or stand out of the Bill. You are going into the Bill for certain purposes, because the Board is to have the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty upon it. You are going into the Bill because, for the purpose of supplementary pensions, if a supplement is-denied by the Admiralty the case may have to go to the Board for consideration. There is another point of practical importance, and that is where I think the Admiralty have not really appreciated our position. We have set up now in the country these local committees and it is admitted that whatever policy is set up in London, the administration of that policy has got to be carried out locally. Surely when you set up these new Committees they will acquire experience, and they will be able to tap all the sources of information in the community. They are entirely a new factor. Why should you by what you do in connection with the Admiralty exclude your disabled men from sharing in that advantage? If you stand outside the new Board's arrangement I am afraid that is what you are going to-do.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
dissented.

Mr. BARLOW
I hope not.

693

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

Mr. BARLOW
Then you are standing outside the arrangement which is governed by the Board, and you have two authorities dealing with the Statutory Committee. Then you are in awful trouble. If the contention of the Admiralty is, "We are going to have our control of the Statutory Committee, as well as the Board presiding over the Statutory Committee," then it means confusion worse confounded. However, I hope the case is not so bad as it appears. All I suggest to the Admiralty is this: Do not do anything—we all sympathise with the effort to secure for your men prompt treatment by payment of pensions at once—to cut out your disabled men who, after all, are the great body of men you have got to consider from the assistance of the Statutory Committee.
Coming to my general criticism of the Bill, I do not wish it to be supposed that it is directed in any way against the Government. There have been curious rumours during the last few weeks, that if one ventures on any criticism he is supposed to want to destroy the Coalition. Far be it from me to suggest anything of the kind. I hope that any criticism offered by those of us who are associated with the Pensions Committee group in the House of Commons may be of a helpful and not of a destructive character. It is very difficult for us to criticise with the Bill not before us. In saying that I do not wish to detract in any way from the very clear statement of the Paymaster-General. I could not understand why it was misunderstood by some hon. Member speaking behind him. But without details of the Bill it is very difficult to direct intelligent criticism. So far as the Bill promoted unification I extend my support to it. It is doubtful whether in any circumstance you could have straight off a complete new system of unification. You have got your 800 people in Baker Street, your 600 at Chelsea, your 200 at the Tate Gallery, and so on. With these bodies in working order it would be very difficult in any circumstance to unify straight away, and I welcome as a step in the right direction what we have got to-day in the way of unification. That does not mean that I am satisfied or at all convinced that we shall not have to take further steps in the future. The test of your machinery in all these matters—I suggest that that test has not been kept sufficiently to the front in some 694 of the speeches made to-night—is this: is it going to be of real assistance to disabled men, to widows, dependants and everybody else who has to come to the State for assistance under these provisions? If your machinery is not going to assist them, if it is a mere question of Departmental adjustment contrived to find a way out of conflicting personal Departmental squabbles, I do not care a button for it. All I care for, and the only reason I have taken up this pension business, is that we must do everything we can to assist the people who come to the State for payment of pensions.
We shall still have, I am afraid, six or seven authorities to whom application may be made. Many of us find our postbags every morning burdened with letters of complaint; letters from people saying that they have written to this and that Department and cannot get answers and do not know where to go, or from whom to get provision made for their cases: yet you are setting up a new authority. Therefore I am very doubtful whether the Bill in its present shape does very much, except from the one point of view which the Paymaster-General put very clearly, namely, that he hoped to get the flat-rate pension and the supplementary pensions made both at the name time practically: and I agree that that would be a great matter, but except to that extent I am rather afraid that this proposal as at present put forward, instead of easing the burden for those for whom we care so much—the dependants, children and wives of these men—is going to increase the burden, because for certain purposes it will mean an additional authority, to which application must be made.
In reference to the exclusion of the Admiralty, I am very sorry that the Admiralty, generally speaking, have taken up the line which they have taken. I can assure those interested in the Admiralty, and those having had experience in that gallant service, that our only object in venturing on this criticism is to help those whose interests they have so much at heart. The Admiralty—I must say I was surprised—have proved slightly obstructive hot only with regard to this policy, but as to the Air Board of which I have heard. I think that it is an unfortunate attitude for them to take. As to the Statutory Committee, the Bill, if the papers are to be trusted, has altered its shape in a Protean kind of Way several times within the last few days, and 695 I am not quite certain even now what the position of the Statutory Committee is. At one time it seemed to be going to be invited to commit a sort of administrative hari-kari, and to submit to murder or suicide. Now it appears to be going to be kept alive in a state of half-suspended animation. I see that the Paymaster-General shakes his head, and I shall be glad if I find that it is really going to be kept fully alive. Taking the Act of Parliament of 1915, it appears to me that the powers of B and C in Section 3 are going to be taken over by the Board and that all the rest of the powers are to be left to the Statutory Committee. If that is so, then I agree that there is very substantial work for the Statutory Committee left to do. I would like to clear up one point. If I am wrong, no doubt the Paymaster-General will correct me. He spoke of a delegation. As I understand what he meant was this: There is no delegation of powers A, D, E, F, and so on, but only a delegation of B and C. These are taken over by the Board and may be redelegated to the Statutory Committee as a permissive matter and by consent of the Board. If it is to that which he referred when he used the word "delegation, then I understand—

§ Mr. HENDERSON
What I wanted to convey to the House was that we could not think of trying to organise new local machinery. There are over 300 committees now in existence. It might be necessary for us to delegate certain powers in order that we might get use of that local machinery. It is to bring ourselves into close contact with the Statutory Committee, and through them with all these local committees, that these words are included.

Mr. BARLOW
I think it is as I suggest, that you assume to yourselves the powers B and C under the Act, and then take power to yourself to redelegate those powers to the local committee, because you say they have got splendid machinery and you want to make all the use of it that you can; but all the other powers, A, D, £, F, and so on, remain with the Statutory Committee and there is no question of delegation with regard to them. The Statutory Committee case was put very well by my hon. Friend on my right. It is in a somewhat different position from a Government Department; it is an outside body, an independent body, according to its own supporters an extremely indepen- 696 dent body, and it has advantages which perhaps a Government Department has not. I hope that it has the advantage of having bowels of compassion, which sometimes a Government Department has not. To that extent I shall be very glad if it is possible to keep it alive. After all, the machinery that we are discussing to-day will come round in the end always to the same old test—is the machinery which we are going to set up going to be effective for getting these great problems solved?
There are two outstanding things which appear to be crying needs. I have got a whole bundle of cases here. I will not trouble the House with them. I am one of those people to whom the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith) refers who have special responsibilities in regard to this. I was largely instrumental in raising the Salford brigade, and these men naturally apply to me. All the cases which I have got here are those of men from the battalions with the raising of which I was connected, and naturally they apply to me for help. The two outstanding difficulties are these: First of all there is the question of gap, of the interval between the time of a man's discharge and the pension. That is getting better, though I have still got two or three bad cases here. But although we have those bad cases the position is getting better. But the two things which are really crying out for settlement are, first of all, the whole question of disablement. We have heard of plans and schemes, but we do not know where we are. I had the pleasure recently when in Paris of visiting the Grand Palais. Many of us knew it in the old days as the home of art and beauty, but I think that no more beautiful work has ever been done or put into the Grand Palais than is being put into it at this moment. If any of you want to see a description of the work that is done there you can lead it in the "Times" this very morning. That is the work of the disabled men who are trained there.
They are trained first of all to special machines. Then gradually they are turned on to working machinery, so that they not only get back the use of their limbs, but they get back the use of their limbs in connection with the learning of a new trade. It is a most wonderful work, and anybody who has not seen it has no idea of the extraordinary development to which things have got in France. I have not had the pleasure of seeing: the Ecole Joffre at 697 Lyons, where I understand the most admirable work is done. The French seem to be very far ahead of us, so far as the whole policy of treating disablement is concerned. In every street through which you walk in Paris, and in other French towns you find the shops full of work turned out by wounded soldiers. When I came home I went through the leading thoroughfares, I looked at the leading shops and did not find a single specimen of work turned out by the labour of wounded soldiers who have learned a trade in the manner in which trades are taught in the Grand Palais. What I want to know is: Is this new Board going to produce the great scheme for which we are all waiting? That scheme must have three things. It must have some method of keeping the men under the control of the military authority or the naval authority during the time of treatment—with their consent, if necessary. I was challenged by an hon. Member to point out how it could be done. The difficulty cannot be insuperable because they do it in France, and if it is possible to do it in France, as we are very much in the same position, it ought to be possible to do it here. They keep the men under discipline while going through the Grand Palais.
Arrangements have been made for men in my Constituency who have been discharged to go to the hospitals, but, if the treatment is irksome or unpleasant, possibly they drop going for one day, and next week, if it is rather damp, they do not stir out of doors, and so on. We must, with the men's help, avoid making the treatment intermittent. Anyone who has had anything to do with treatment of the kind knows that the essential thing is that it should be not intermittent, but continuous, as otherwise valuable time is lost and the treatment may become ineffective. The first condition, therefore, is that the man must be retained under reasonable control while being trained. The second is, that you must have the best orthopaedic doctors. The Army has got them, and they cannot be obtained elsewhere. You cannot get on withont them. Then you must have the local committee, and it is from the point of view of having the assistance of the local committee that I venture to suggest to the Admiralty that they should come in and make use of the advantages which I have indicated.
698 The second crying need is the cases of men who have been in the Army whose health has broken down. I know many such cases. I have got two very touching cases here. One is the case of a man with eight children and another that of a man with nine children. None of these children are capable of earning. One of these men developed asthma, and the other got lung trouble. I should have thought it obvious to anyone reading the history of what they went through; the fact that the hutting was not satisfactory, that they were in tents, that the accommodation was not good, and that they were exposed to bad weather, that they got these diseases from the cold and damp to which they were exposed in the course of their training, and I should have thought it obvious that these were cases for which there was a responsibility on the part of the nation which was clear as daylight. These men are unable to do any work. One of them got a light job but was unable to keep it. The nation has taken those men's lives and it is clear that their illness was due to the fact that they were exposed to these conditions in the Army. If our new scheme will assist us to get a remedy for that state of things, then I say "God speed" to it at once. Some questions of detail have been raised about what exactly the new Pension Board is to be and what authority it is to have. But we need not discuss them until we see the Bill. I hope it will not be necessary to set up any very elaborate Department with an elaborate staff. At a time like this it does not seem to be desirable to spend any very large sum of money or to have a big array of secretaries.
Let me conclude with one word of warning. Pensions are going to be a great question in this country during the lives of all of us here and during the lives of others who come after us. Do not let us make any mistake. Several countries have had very unfortunate experiences in regard to the question. In some the pensions question has become a political question. It has been made a matter of contested elections, and the pressure put upon popular representatives over the matter of pensions has been enormous. I hope we shall try to escape from that. I do not wish to say anything that can be deemed to be of a controversial character. But it has come to my attention that one party has been issuing notices saying that applications for pensions are to be made 699 to its Parliamentary Committee. I deprecate that most strongly, because it is not playing the game, and if that kind of trouble is going to start now, Heaven knows what kind of morass we are going to fall into. Though I feel strongly that the pensions question is such a big question, though I feel there must be someone responsible to Parliament and able to speak in the matter, I am not at all sure that in the end we shall not do well to adopt the precedent of the Canadian Parliament or that of our own Parliament in connection with the Port of London Authority. We have set up, in connection with that authority, a semi-Government Department, and I am not certain it would not be better to do something of the same kind here. I enter this as a sort of caveat or note of warning for the future. With regard to the Bill, I have not criticised it very severely to-night, but like others, I reserve the right of freer criticism when we have the pleasure of seeing the measure in print.

§ Sir NORVAL HELME
I am sure the House will recognise that the Government have met the general feeling in the country by the introduction of the measure outlined to-night with the object that the system of pensions shall be well administered and generously provided. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman showed us how thoroughly and fully he has considered the question of desirable improvements. But it appears to me that the establishment of a Board is open to question. We recognise the ability of the three right hon. Gentlemen, whose names it is proposed to associate with that of the President. We also recognise that they are already very well administering the great work of their Departments. But it seems to me, and to others, that if a Department in itself was established and the President left to regulate its business after the fashion of other Departments of State, with, if necessary, an under-secretary, then the time of the responsible Ministers in the other Departments would be left free to deal with the various important issues they have to consider day by day. Of course, they could be called in for consultation when necessary in the way that is done at the present time between different Departments when matters arise affecting them. May I hope, therefore, that this point will receive attention, and that it will, 700 together with the important question of leaving out the Navy, have the careful consideration of the Cabinet.
We admit that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty has made a very strong appeal to the feeling of the House. We recognise that the position of the Navy is altogether driierent from that of the Army, and if, as I understand, the flat rate of pensions, both in the Army and in the Navy, will be dealt with in the first instance by the two great Departments themselves, then why should the Admiralty not be content to allow those men who require further assistance and special consideration—especially as the claims of each individual man will have to be dealt with locally—to have their cases dealt with by one responsible head, whose duty it will be to deal with all the allowances made to both soldiers and sailors. I hope the Government will leave this matter to the unfettered judgment of the House. In the meantime, we do not desire to challenge the opinion of the Government, except by way of argument; we do not want to go into the Lobby against it, because of our confidence in it as a great national instrument for carrying the War through. We desire to support them in every way. But we would ask them to consider this question.
I wish to make some reference to the allusions of the right hon. Gentleman to the work of the Statutory Committee. That Committee has been constituted to carry out very important duties, and to act through local committees. They are, of course, allowed a certain amount of discretionary power in respect of the populations in urban districts below the 50,000 limit. But it is because of the duties of these local committees that I am putting forward my plea. The duty of the local committees, in the first place, is to inquire into cases and report thereon with recommendations. They collect and furnish information to the Statutory Committee, and at the same time they furnish applicants for grants and separation allowances with information and advice. They make provision for grants to disabled officers and men after they leave the Service, including prevision for health, training, and employment, and the successful administration of these additional pensions must depend on the amount of knowledge of each case. We hold that sound administration would carry the establishment of committees 701 with such powers further than is now allowed. The Statutory Committee has seen fit to increase the number of local committees when appealed to in the public interest. But a feeling of disappointment has arisen in the country because of the very few places below the 50,000 limit that have been entrusted with these powers.
A deputation from the Municipal Corporations Association waited on the Statutory Committee recently, and the matter was discussed in this House on the Vote for the Vice-Chairman's salary, so that the whole question has been before us in one form or another. Since then a meeting has been held of the smaller authorities, and a request sent to the Prime Minister that he would receive a deputation in order that the smaller authorities may press upon him, before the introduction of this Bill, these arguments, and invite a more generous consideration of them. But now that we have had from the right hon. Gentleman so generous an acknowledgment of his feeling in respect of the devolution he thinks it may be necessary to carry still further, I rise to express to him the thanks of the smaller urban authorities, and to suggest, as I understand he will be willing to do, that they shall have an opportunity of putting before the Government their view. I hope, then, these views will receive the consideration which we think would enable them to make a further development in the successful administration of this very useful Bill, the introduction of which I heartily welcome.

§ Mr. WARDLE
I desire to say only a few words on this occasion. I welcome very heartily the introduction of this Bill as a great step in the right direction. It does not go quite so far as I would have liked, but as far as it does go, I think it is a very great step towards the simplification of the machinery with regard to pensions, and I hope it may have the result, which the Secretary to the Admiralty suggested in his eloquent speech, of carrying out what is the undoubted intention of Parliament, and that is, that all our soldiers and sailors, and their widows and dependants, shall be treated in the manner this House desires. There can be no question that the House of Commons, during the whole crisis of this War, has faced the question of pensions and separation allowances in a broad and generous spirit. Where it has been lacking has been in the machinery, in the 702 delays, and in the inconveniences which have occurred before the recipients have got the benefit to which they have been entitled. It has been not only delay, but there has been dissatisfaction with the amounts which have been granted, amounts which many of us deem to be absolutely contrary to the intentions and desires of Parliament. I beg, therefore, to say that, so far as I am concerned, we welcome the simplification and unification which this Bill will produce. In regard to the Navy, I do not know that I feel very keenly about it. But the right hon. Gentleman, I admit, has, in regard to this Bill, rightly referred to the great traditions of that Service; to the close feeling and association there is between the men in the Navy and the administration itself. I am bound to confess that I receive very few complaints indeed, amongst the numberless complaints I have received, in regard to the pensions or allowances of the Navy. I should like also to add that on a committee on which I sit which deals with disabled men, I find the Navy very broad and very generous in their treatment of the men. They are always the first to welcome any increase or innovation, and always ready to assist their men in any way they can. I want, in regard to the Navy, to raise one particular point which is not quite clear to me. So far as I can gather, the Navy intend to keep the flat-rate pension in their own hands. Any supplemental pension which is granted to a member of the naval forces must be got from the Pensions Board.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
Not necessarily.

§ Mr. WARDLE
All I am anxious is to find out whether or not there is to be two bites at the cherry. If there is, I think it is a weak point in that particular portion of the administration. Where a supplemental question is at stake the decision should he taken at once, and the whole question should be considered and settled, if possible, by one authority. Whatever the grant, I know it will have to be brought under review; but in regard to the Pensions Board itself, I should like to say that I hope we may gather from the speech of the Paymaster-General that it is the intention of the Government, when they once grant a pension, not to have it constantly under review, changing and chopping it about, so that those concerned do not know what they are likely to receive. If the Paymaster-General agrees, as I think he did from his speech this 703 afternoon, with the French system, that once the pension is settled it is settled for all time, then that will be well, and a great many problems which are agitating the mind of the pensioner, and which are very disconcerting to men who are getting pensions and earning something extra, will be solved. It is an indefensible system that a pensioner who is able to earn an extra few shillings per week should have his pension continually reviewed and for the advantage due to his extra earning capacity taken away and transferred to the State. I hope we may gather from the speech of my right hon. Friend that it is his intention, and the intention of the Pensions Board, to put an end to that.
We cannot criticise the new scales until we see them. There is just one other point I want to raise. I do not know whether, under the new arrangement, it is under the Pensions Board or the Statutory Committee, but there has been so much delay in regard to this matter that I am bound to raise it on the present occasion. I am connected with a committee that deals with limbless men. It is an enormous problem. The committee has taken upon itself and is carrying out a scheme of training for the men both at Brighton and Roehampton. While the men are with us we have no complaint to make. We deal with their training. They are under military or naval discipline. There are, however, a number of these men, when they come to leave us, for whom we cannot get, either from the Statutory Committee in London or from the Pensions Board, a grant to continue for them their training' until they are fitted to return to industrial life. We have put this problem before the Statutory Committee in London. They have made certain arrangements and agreed to them, and these agreements have not been carried out.

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
May I interrupt my hon. Friend for a moment to say we have only just received from the Treasury their sanction to the financial arrangements which we have been asking them to make and which, naturally, they had to take some time to consider? We have just received and considered it to-day. I think it will be found to be satisfactory.

§ Mr. WARDLE
What the right hon. Gentleman has said brings me exactly to the point that I wanted to ask as to the Statutory Committee. They had money 704 granted to them for dealing with the question of the disabled men and their training, and it seems to myself and to the committee a very strange proceeding that it should be necessary to go to the Treasury to ask their consent to a scheme for dealing with the training of these men in. London. This matter has been going on for six weeks, two months, three months, and we have had to find the money to pay for the training of these men in London. This expense ought to have been borne by the Statutory Committee. I am very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the trouble has been got over, and that the scheme, which I hope we may be permitted to see at a very early date, is now in a satisfactory position. I should like simply to say once more how glad I am that this whole question of pensions is to receive more drastic treatment. I hope we shall hear less of delays and troubles in the future now that my right hon. Friend has been put in charge of these proceedings. For my part, I rather welcome the idea of a Board. I think it is big enough. It is not too big. I should deprecate a large committee. I think it would tend to delay. The fact that we have a Board consisting of four Gentlemen in close touch with all the Departments, and all the problems arising out of them, will certainly tend to a solution of the problem in a much quicker manner than has hitherto been the practice.

§ Colonel YATE
I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty with great interest. I will not attempt to follow him in his eloquent dissertation on the war-worn veterans, or his remarks in regard to the details of the pensions administration; nor will I attempt to follow him in all his cogent reasons as to why his particular Department should not come within the operations of this Bill. I suppose that his example will now be followed by the other Under-Secretaries, by the Under-Secretary for War and the Under-Secretary for the Local Government Board, who will each of them in turn doubtless give cogent reasons why their Department could not come within the new sphere of operations. What I would like to say, and the only thing I want to say at the present stage, is that, so far as my knowledge goes, and so far as I can gather the constitution and procedure of the new Board, I am opposed to it root and branch. Look how we stand! We have got a Cabinet Minister who is put in as 705 President of this Board; a Cabinet Minister who is a party politician, and is removed or goes out of office with every change of Government, and who also will be liable to change with every shifting of Cabinet Ministers. There can be no permanent administration while a Cabinet Minister of that sort presides over this Board. Similarly, in the case of the three Under-Secretaries, the Admiralty, War Office, and the Local Government Board, they all are busy, morning, noon, and night in their own Departments. At present they have more than they can do. They have no time to give to the details of the administration of the Pensions Board. They also are party politicians. They also come out with every change of Government. There is no permanency in the administration. Not only that, but it seems to me that in constituting this Board you are engrafting on the British Constitution what in America they call "graft." We have been warned against it by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, who told us that already he had noticed that one political party was issuing notices that applications for pensions were to be made through them. We must try and put down this system. Personally I see no reason why we should not have an entirely independent pensions authority in charge of the pensions, and why such an authority should not be represented in this House just as are the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I object entirely to the political touch which is given to this Pensions Board.

HON. MEMBERS
No, no!

§ Colonel YATE
I do. I object, and object entirely!

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
Why?

§ Colonel YATE
The right hon. Gentleman asks me "Why?" He himself objects to come under the Board, and he objects to me saying that I, too, object to the Board. I object to it root and branch. If this Pension Board is constituted as suggested it will be a great departure from our constitutional practice.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
This question is a deep and urgent one. It is likely to become much bigger and much more urgent in the future. Therefore, we are wise to consider and settle as early as we can the best and most useful machinery for administering this great problem in the future, and for doing our duty to the men who are suffering and dying for us. I 706 agree with what has been said in favour of a Board. It is the duty of the people of this country and of us who represent the people to do all we can for these men. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there can be no more sacred obligation upon the State and upon us who help the wheels of the State to go smoothly than to provide for the men who have been disabled in fighting the battles of their country, and in providing for the dependants of those men who have fallen in the fight. Our duty is not merely to provide for these all upon a generous scale, but to see that the provision, whatever it is, is received by those who are entitled to receive it as promptly and as swiftly as possible. I have, I confess, seen—because I am glad to say a great many of my Constituents and friends of my Constituents are fighting at the front—a good many cases in which there has been very great delay in providing an adequate pension for the dependants, or for the men themselves. There are, I think, probably two reasons why that delay occurs. The one is on account of the complexity of the rules under which the pensions are allotted, and the other is, it may be, on account of the inadequacy of the present machinery. We know that to-day these various offices are overworked. The Pay and the Record Offices are overworked. They have a difficult task to administer, and, like every other human being, they make mistakes. I myself have come across some very bad cases where men who have been disabled have not got their pension for two, three, or four months. If machinery is going to be set up which will prevent these delays, or, at all events, reduce them to a minimum, then it deserves our most hearty support.
8.0 P.M.
As to the precise constitution of the Board and the functions allotted to it, I should not like to pronounce a final opinion until we see the Bill. I believe, however, so far as I have been able to gather from this Debate, that it is a step in the right direction. At any rate, it will go some of the way to produce that unification which is absolutely necessary if the machinery is to work smoothly. The right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General told us, if I understood him aright, that one of the first duties of the new Board would be to produce a new scale of rates. If that is to be one of their first duties, it makes it all the more important that the constitution of that Board 707 should be the best we can devise. I should be out of order to discuss the question of rates, but perhaps I might be permitted, by way of illustration, to suggest one thing to the Paymaster-General upon which a reform is necessary, and that is on the question of whether what are known as double pensions should be allowed. I cannot for the life of me understand why, when a man has earned his pension in the Army, when he rejoins and goes out to fight again, and when he comes back after that second period of fighting, and has earned a new pension, he should not be entitled to that new pension as well as to the one he has earned previously.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
Hear, hear!

§ Mr. BUTCHER
I am glad to gather that I have the full assent of the Paymaster-General to that suggestion. My hon. Friend the gallant Member for the Leicestershire Division (Colonel Yate), and also the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Montague Barlow), referred to the question of whether it was possible that this Board might become a political instrument. I suppose every man in this House would agree that nothing more disastrous could occur than that the administration of pensions in our country should become a matter of political favour or influence. I do not take the somewhat gloomy view that was taken by my hon. Friend, but I do hope that great care will be taken in the constitution of this Board, now and in the future, to eliminate from it every political tendency which might make it possible that that should be done, because after all, the question of pensions is a national question, and it deserves to be administered in a national way for the benefit of the men and women who are entitled to them.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I wish to make one suggestion. I understand the whole of this scheme is for the benefit of those who have served in the Army and Navy. Would it not be a graceful matter to say that all appointments made under this Board should be given, as far as possible, to those who have served in the Army and Navy, and in the case of those female assistants that we are told are very much needed in the way of typewriters, that as far as possible they should be given to relatives of those who have served their country either in the Army or in the Navy? 708 It is a question I have asked once or twice in the House, and I have properly received the answer that until the matter was brought forward by way of a Bill it could not be dealt with. There is a strong feeling on this point in the country, and, quite apart from a question of justice, it would be a great act of grace that the Army and Navy should receive any appointments necessary under this Bill.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
It is only by leave of the House that I can say a further word or two, and I have risen more for the purpose of making an appeal to the House to allow the Bill to be introduced before 8.15; but I should like to make one or two observations first. In regard to the political charge which has been made, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) very properly pointed out that two hon. Members opposite, the hon. and gallant Member for Leicestershire and the hon. Member for Salford, introduced this point very strongly. It seems to me that we have taken the most direct course, short of cutting this work completely out of the control of Parliament, in having a Board upon which there are two members of one party and two members of two other parties.

§ Colonel YATE
That will not last for ever.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
At any rate, it will last for the time being, and I am not quite sure whether our views might not be affected by the particular party that is in power when the present Coalition ceases; but I think we have taken a step in the right direction by having a mixed Board, and that is one of the reasons why I think a mixed Board will be continued. If we had attempted to divorce all pension work from the control of the House of Commons we should have had the strongest possible protest, and I think rightly, for this reason: Some of the Members of this House took the most active part in recruiting, and is it to be said that we went forward on every platform in all parts of the country and appealed for men to recruit and that when it came to be a case of being wounded, disabled or incapacitated, we said, "This is no part of our work; we are going to transfer this to a Board over whom you will have no control whatever?" That is a doctrine to which I could not possibly subscribe. As for the charge of grafting, I think I am voicing the opinions of all shades of party politicians in this House when I say that the last thing we want to see introduced into this 709 country is that referred to by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Yate), but I see no trace of it in the Bill that I have the honour on behalf of the Government to submit to the House to-day. Grafting, I hope, will be long foreign to our system of politics in this House. The other word that I want to say is on a practical subject. There is an apprehension that the Board is not going to do the work that the Bill claims for it or brings under its control. I do not agree. I think the Board will do the work, but I want to make it clear that the Board cannot do the work if the idea that has been expressed from one or two quarters is to be carried into effect. For instance, it has been suggested that we want to be careful with regard to efficiency. Well, you cannot have efficiency in my opinion if you are under-staffed, and I am not going to be any party to setting up a new Department and beginning it under-staffed in numbers or in capacity, and I want to make it perfectly clear that I could not be responsible for a Department that was so organised. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith) brought before the House a point that we ought to have an Under-Secretary who would devote his whole time to the work. That is exactly what WE propose to do. We are not going to run this Department in any other way than the other great Departments of the State are run, and I hope we shall have an efficient and devoted Under-Secretary appointed who will devote the whole of his time to the pensions work, and I think that in this way we shall be able to show that what I believe the country expects we shall do will be very properly done, and that is to care in the very best possible way for all those who have offered their lives on the altar in the interests of the country in the desire to win this War. I hope we may now be given permission to introduce the Bill.

§ Mr. SHERWELL
I do not rise for the purpose of preventing the Government from getting leave to introduce the Bill before 8.15, but I would like to say one word on the subject to which we have just listened from the Paymaster-General. I am one of those who feel considerable pleasure in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been appointed to this Department. I should have felt more reassurace if I could have been satisfied at the same time that with his assumption of this office his other duties in the Cabinet 710 in the way of Labour Adviser will cease, because I am quite convinced, despite the assurance he has just given that an efficient Under-Secretary will be appointed, who will devote his whole time to this office, that the Chairman on this Board or the Pensions Minister must be at leisure to devote the whole of his time to this most preoccupying and important work. Therefore I sincerely hope we may have, before the Bill which it is now desired to introduce passes beyond the control of the House, some assurance from the Prime Minister that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henderson) will be released from other duties to which he is now devoted. I will only say this in reference to what the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Yate) said a moment or two ago. There is some force in his objection. I entirely dissociate myself from any suggestion of graft in any arrangement that is here proposed. I do not lend countenance to that, but there is some force in the suggestion that the arrangement which is now made by the appointment of a non-party Board is good so far as the life of the present Parliament is concerned, but that it may be liable to those fluctuations in the ordinary course of political experience, which must be liable to those fluctuations, to which he alluded, and therefore there is a little more weight to be attached to that particular objection than I think the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General has attached to it. There are other points, but I will not press them now, because I am anxious not to hinder the Government getting their Motion. We are greatly reassured by the creation of this Board, but we are reassured chiefly because we hope that it will put an end to those difficulties in administration which have detracted very considerably from the advantage of the pensions which the Government have already promised to the nation.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ Bill for establishing a Board of Pensions and for purposes connected therewith ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Henderson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Dr. Macnamara, Mr. Forster, Mr. Hayes Fisher, and the Solicitor-General. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill No. 122.]